Myriam Bohemier, the only Quebec participant in the hearings, is a Montreal lawyer, who spoke in English but was aided when necessary by the translation assistance offered by Richard Girgis of Fearless Canada. Bohemier spoke on family law issues of relevance. She discussed parents who disagree with each other, where one does not want their children to be jabbed. The parents who do not want the injections have “less rights than a serial killer” in a legal proceeding, and they have no defense. Parents who protest against the jabbing of their children, in family law courts, are formally treated as “conspiracy theorists,” and their arguments are dismissed. Only a single Ontario judgment was favorable to dissenting parents—but in Quebec, all judgments have ordered “vaccinations” and have humiliated dissenting parents as “conspiracy theorists”. February, which was likely the darkest month of these two years in Quebec, saw three judgments that prohibited parents from relying on experts to challenge public “recommendations” on “vaccination”. Judges decided to ensure 100% adherence to “public health recommendations”. Bohemier tried to gain a full hearing on the merits of this decision, but the courts treated the injections as an urgent matter in an “emergency”. Judges rely on affidavits, public policy documents, and the Facebook pages of the “conspiracy theorist” parents, in devising their rulings. The only exemption would be for children where the family doctor swears that the injection would be contraindicated. Otherwise, anti-injection parents have zero defense. When Bohemier tried to introduce documents produced by experts critical of the “vaccines,” the judge assured the opposing lawyer that he would disregard all documents coming from outside Canada; in other cases, judges have called into question the expertise of opposing doctors, thus dismissing their reports from submitted files. In some cases judges barked at dissident experts, “tell me ‘yes’ or ‘no’: is it safe?”. The unfairness of judges has also been shielded from appeals. Parents supporting injection, were relieved of any duty to provide scientific support for their choice.
In response to questions from the panel, on parental rights, Bohemier said it is an established right for parents to exercise vigilance and care of their children, and have parental authority. But on questions that affect “the nation,” some parents are clearly robbed of their authority. Is there any public movement protesting the bias of the courts? Richard Girgis noted that Quebec probably had the biggest protest movement in Canada, from the spring of 2020 onward, and the Conservative Party of Quebec gained enormous ground by challenging the pandemic policies; there were massive protests, on every issue of relevance—masks, lockdowns, jab mandates, etc. Despite this, the media and the National Assembly of Quebec were effectively locked in step behind the government. Quebec media in particular were viciously slanderous against protesters and dissidents. Bohemier is a member of Reinfo Covid, which has 10,000 members.
Bohemier has tried to use freedom of speech rights on the part of protesting parents, to defend them against their inputs being nullified. Bohemier has decided to make a documentary of the procedures to be followed by protesting parents. “We are not ‘complotistes’ (conspiracy theorists), but rather ‘questionistes’ (questioners)”. Bohemier has even been assailed as a “complotiste” by rival lawyers in cases. Judges have dismissed basic facts—such as the mRNA “vaccines” being experimental—or have (ironically) accused her of being melodramatic by describing “vaccination” as an issue with life or death consequences. Bohemier is also preparing a letter of protest on how Chief Justice Richard Wagner who, since September of 2021, imposed a policy requiring “vaccination” of all his fellow judges, plus making disparaging comments about the Freedom Convoy. She asks: “do we still have a right to a fair trial?”. Judges in Quebec argue that they cannot substitute for executive decisions, says Girgis, which means that right out of the gate they have sworn themselves against exercising any kind of independence. In the end, Bohemier says, children are losing their rights to their parents.