A professor at Laval University (Université Laval) in Quebec City has been suspended without pay for two months for questioning the benefits of COVID vaccines for children. Microbiology and immunology Professor Patrick Provost sent out an email soliciting a discussion on the issue and raising his concerns. He has now been disciplined for merely raising such issues by a university that has discarded any semblance of academic integrity and free speech.
As with the university, Quebecor Media quickly yielded to a mob of critics and removed Provost’s remarks. Journal de Québec Editor-in-Chief Sébastien Ménard said that Provost’s points “were inaccurate or could mislead the public.” Notably, Ménard did not seem compelled to address the alleged inaccuracies in the comments or Provost’s basis for raising his concerns.
Ménard did not seem to entertain the possibility that the media can be a place for the exchange of such ideas, including a rigorous debate challenging Provost’s assertions. Instead, the solution, once again, was censorship.
Most of Provost’s colleagues have said nothing in defense of an academic being denied the very freedom that defines and sustains our profession. One exception is Douglas Farrow, a professor of theology and ethics at McGill University in Montreal, who denounced the suspension as “A Repressive Political Act” in a Substack article.
To its credit, the Université Laval faculty union has filed a grievance on Provost’s behalf.
I recently wrote a column on our own struggle with cancel culture in George Washington University in the effort to bar Justice Clarence Thomas from teaching. To its credit, the university sided with academic freedom. However, as the column noted, most people do not have a seat on the Supreme Court to reinforce their academic positions.
Last week, my study on the decline of free speech at universities was published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” explores the anti-free speech movement in the United States and the increasingly common claim that free speech itself is harmful. This is another example of that trend in Canada. It is part of an existential struggle for all faculty and students over the purpose and future of higher education in both countries.
Jonathan: One would think you could pick a case closer to home to discuss “free speech”. I can see where Laval University might be concerned about Dr. Provost’s misinformation re Covid vacs for children. It’s a public health issue and Laval doesn’t want to misinform Canadian parents about how to best protect their children. But your only concern is to protect Dr. Provost’s right to peddle misinformation that could be medically dangerous. Dr. Mathieu Nadeau-Valle at the University of Montreal has a different take: “This person [Provost] doesn’t really have the expertise to speak about all this. He’s a biochemistry professor; he doesn’t study messenger RNA, he studies small RNA, it’s not at all the same research…he is speaking against the scientific consensus on the subject…Academic freedom means being able to speak about any subject but it doesn’t mean that we can say false things”. Intentionally saying “false things” about Covid vacs for kids would seems to warrant a two month suspension.
Speaking of a “free speech” issue closer to home you could have discussed a similar case at Hogan Lovells, one of the largest law firms in this country and the world. The “Women’s Initiative Network” at the firm recently held a Zoom call about the Dobbs decision. One female white partner chimed in in support of Dobbs and expressed her own racist views that Black women are disproportionately getting abortions and conducting “Black genocide” which the partner found “tragic”. There was “shock” and “outrage” by most of the other participants. Hogan Lovells has suspended the white partner pending an investigation saying: “”Racist actions and statements are contrary to our culture, values, and business as a firm,…” Yes, there are consequences for making racist statements at law firms–at least at Hogan Lovells. I’m sure you will raise a hue and cry about this flagrant violation of a racist’s “free speech” rights.
What amazes me is your myopia. You write endlessly about censorship of conservatives at universities–their right to peddle racist views. But you have yet to discuss some real cases of censorship–like the banning of books in public schools. That would appear to be an existential threat to free expression right here at home. Apparently of little concern to you–one who claims to be a free speech “absolutist”. Why is that?
It seems that someone is challenged on the use of Socratic Method..
“peddle misinformation that could be medically dangerous” Says who, moron? How about the “peddling”—no mandating, you little Mengele tyrant—untested pseudo-vaccines to children, a group with a super low incidence of infection and fatalities? Now THAT is what is called dangerous….and misanthropically so. Scientific consensus? Come on, man! There is no such thing! Do you live under a CNN-infested Blue rock? But racism? In my experience, which is vast, it is usually the racist that accuses others of racism. Leftist death cultists have been race-baiting 24/7 for a century!
Let me get this straight. Provost gets suspended and his means of supporting his family is taken away because he asked other professionals in his field to give their opinions about vaccines. This is a discussion that can not even be allowed by the best and brightest in the medical profession in Canada. Zeke Heil translated means “For the win.”
Good grief.
Even asking for discussion/debate on a topic can get one suspended without pay?
Go against the “official” narrative, get disciplined for it.
Isn’t California trying to pass a law that anyone in the medical profession who voices any opinion other than the “official” government mandated narrative faces getting the medical license suspended?
Heil Hitler!!
Unconscionable. Trudeau has turned to Canada into another Cuba.
Anyone that wants to understand leftist fascism just read Sammy’s comment above where he states that “of course a university should be allowed to censor ideas that are wrong”. It is always the left that finds ideas that are wrong that need to be censored. When was the last time Twitter, or any other site, blocked a liberal point of view that was wrong? It is always one way, the origins of covid, the Hunter laptop, Russian collusion. All of these have been proven to be 100% wrong and yet not one of them was censored. Yet we see over and over again that people on the right are blocked every day. Twitter will suspend you if you use the former name of the actress that is now an actor. You get banned for saying that the female “Admiral” that the idiot Biden “promoted” is really a man. Banned for stating the obvious if you are not on the right team.
“It is always the left that finds ideas that are wrong that need to be censored” is the predicate to totalitarianism and should be engraved in stone and ingrained into all minds! An absolute truism.
I don’t recall Turley objecting when the University of Florida barred professors from providing expert testimony about voting rights? He apparently is blind to First Amendment suppression when he can’t point to the left. (The professors won their lawsuit)
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/580355-florida-professors-sue-over-prohibition-on-testimony-in-voting/
No one is suppressing your right to vote, Enigma.
Oh yes enigma. If you read down past the first few paragraphs of your link you will see that the University of Florida said that their testimony could not be PAID for testimony. In other words testimony to the highest bidder would not be allowed. If their opinion was so important why would they have to be PAID to give it? Isn’t it interesting how one word can change a perception. Either you left out the word PAID on purpose or you just didn’t read down far enough to see it. I must give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn’t read the entirety of the link you provided. Please let us know if it was an on purpose omission or just an overlooked portion of your link.
While you latched onto the word “paid,” University professors had to seek permission to participate in any outside activity deemed against the interest of the state as DeSantis saw fit. I thought the interest here was a concern with free speech. Even if it were a limit on paid expert testimony, it would still be an infringement on speech based on ideology which surely you object to?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/21/university-florida-lawsuit-academic-freedom/
Many employers bar outside work without there permission.
Do you think that Plumbers apprentices are permitted to take plumbing contracts over the weekend.
We’re not talking about non-compete contracts here or potentially taking business from your employer. This is denying their expertise to anyone with a different point of view. The reality is the schools are afraid the Governor might get pissed off and deny them funding. This is life under a dictator.
Given the question the court was addressing – they had nothing to contribute.
This is a constant problem with your arguments – bad appeals to authority.
One of the things SCOTUS is correctly pushing towards is getting issues of politics and policy and science OUT of the courts.
Courts decide the law and the Constitution and rarely need experts to assist in that.
Regardless, in this instance they were injecting opinion into questions of law and politics.
The courts should not have allowed their testimony as irrelevant.
And we are talking about testifying against the interests of your employer.
Yes, the school should be afraid that the state of Florida would defund them for fighting duly enacted legislation signed by the governor.
As Obama said – “elections have consequences”
Biden is busily finding stupid left wing priorities and defunding or interfering with anything Trump did regardless of whether it works or not.
That is mostly their perogative – and they are mostly answerable to the voters – not the courts.
You really should spend some time living under a real dictator.
People are Fleeing Blue states Like CA for Red states like FL because they are FREER.
You may disagree – but people are voting against you with their feet.
What was done with these UoF professors should not have been done. But it was not a crime, it was not a violation of the first amendment, it was not directly comparable to anything the left does.
That said I find it hard to conceive of a reason that the court should have allowed them to testify as expert witnesses.
I can not conceive of how a college professor could claim to be an expert in what is a political legal and constitutional process.
I know you have to be against everything I say, but pause for a minute. Our court system has come to rely to some degree on expert witnesses. A certain percentage of those reside in colleges and universities. Talking about voting in particular, among the many areas DeSantis is hoping to block. A College professor may have done studies and published literature that makes them an expert and therefore a resource. The judge has to accept their qualifications before allowing them to testify. There is a process, other than what the school thinks the Governor might approve of.
Your logic in reverse is that any violation of the first amendment is a crime? How silly is that?
The courts use expert witness to assess FACTUAL evidence.
The history of that is really bad – I would suggest reading NSF and NBS reports on the FBI labs or on the massive problems with the faux science sold by “expert witnesses”.
That said where there is real questions that actually require understanding technical evidence that is relevant – none of which was applicable to this case, Experts are essential – but Courts much do better in vetting them.
Sometimes “experts” do reside in schools and universities – but honestly that is rare.
As an example a university biologist should almost never be certified as an expert witness to discuss whether the DNA from scene matches the defendant. The purpose of an expert is NOT primarily to tell us that no two people have the same DNA, but to tell us whether as measured using teh procedures in criminal forensic labs to what extent can we say two DNA samples match.
Often these people get it WRONG, but there is rarely a basis to presume a professor would do better.
The standards for law and the standards for science are radically different.
Expert witness testimony is more close to the domain of engineers than academics. It is applied science.
Most any professor of physics can explain the laws of structures. Few can assess the design of a poured concrete building and tell if it was structurally sound.
All that said the instant case had no questions or evidence that required expert witnesses.
if you do not want my criticism – all you need do is get your facts straight and your arguments logical.
I have no animus towards you.
All I know of you is your posts. You control that.
“A College professor may have done studies and published literature that makes them an expert and therefore a resource. ”
Highly unlikely. Outside of say the engineering departments or maybe the accounting departments.
For the most part the issues that colleges deal with, the things professors are actual experts at rarely have merit in court, and even more rarely in cases that are about the law and constitutionality.
Turley would likely qualify as an expert in this case – the court can and should solliict impartial legal views on the law and constitution.
“The judge has to accept their qualifications before allowing them to testify. There is a process”
Correct and there are myriads of studies demonstrating that judges far far to easily certify people as experts when they are not or accept expert testimony in areas where it is inappropriate.
“other than what the school thinks the Governor might approve of.”
True but not relevant.
“Your logic in reverse is that any violation of the first amendment is a crime? How silly is that?”
That is silly, but it is not at all what I have said, nor in reverse,
Though I would note that every true statement is not inherently reversable.
The mathematical laws of equations – only apply to equations.
There are separate laws of logic that apply to implications and those are not typically reverseable.
as an example:
If A then B
~B
Therefore ~A
is a formal logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.
You can not reverse
If A then B.
There are specific rules for the manipulation of logic and they are different from those of mathematical equations.
This is one of Keynes great errors, Some of the mathematical relationships Keynes observed are implications – one way, not equations – two ways.
You can not apply the laws for mathmatical equations to them.
This erroris why we got stagflation in the 70’s.
“If A then B
~B
Therefore ~A
is a formal logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.”
That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But your point is taken.
Affirming the Consequent
If A then B
B
Therefore A
But your original formulation is *not* B and *not* A. (The tilde = negation.) Written that way, the formulation is actually a logical implication.
The issue in affirming the consequent (which your formulation, above) does capture is “converse,” not “reverse.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Why are we all obligated to object to whatever offends you ?
The issue was addressed HERE and I am fairly certain Turley did oppose.
The UoF “experts” were not barred from holding or expessing their views but from Acting as Representatives of UofF.
There is a giant gulf between you can not go here and testify as an expert representing UoF – particularly in an instance where they were literally arguing against their employer while representing their employer and
A university saying – you can not speak on this subject any OPERIOD.
I wasn’t obligating you to object to anything. I said Turley is being disingenuous to act like only the right wing is facing First Amendment concerns. The University bwas saying they need to get permission to provide expert testimony on any subject they don’t like. While they may have been employed by the University, they didn’t represent the school. Their own credentials and experience is what made them expert, very likely obtained at other institutions though that isn’t the issue.
While your counter examples are poor analogies,
SOMETIMES you have small points regarding republic hyporacy – including on free speech issues.
Though AGAIN I am not republican.
The UoF prof’s should have been allowed to testify – even when the law allows restricting speech, it is nearly always preferable to NOT restrict speech.
I have defended Florida’s actions as legal. But that does not mean it is the choice they should have made.
BUT that does not mean these instances are analogous.
Today the LEFT is the threat today to the right to free speech – not the right.
The WORST we will see from the RIGHT is limited retrenchment on SOME issues to a recent past STATUS QUO.
No matter how bad that might be it is dwarfed by the potential and unknowable consequences.
While most everything Republicans seek will result in KNOWN effects.
The easy solution to the UoF issue is to get rid of public funding of schools.
The question of whether they were expert witnesses is independent.
I have little doubt the court would have accepted them.
But that would have been error.
The questions being addressed were LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL
At best a professor of constitutional law should qualify as an expert.
One of the things the current supreme court is slowly moving towards is that the domain of the courts is the law and constitution.
Not politics, not science.
Academics can be experts on matters that are legal and constitutional. Turley would be an example of someone who is a professor that is expert on legal and constitutional matters. That doesn’t eliminate his bias but that he is an expert is beyond dispute. Part of the documentation of his expertise are his academic credentials. He’s published peer reviewed articles (he also publishes some political trash). If someone wants his testimony in court, they should have the opportunity to have it. It shouldn’t be denied because a tryand doesn’t like what they have to say.
“Academics can be experts on matters that are legal and constitutional. ”
Not if they are not constitutional law professors, or professors of constitutional history – who would NOT be experts on the law.
You do not seem to grasp – it is likely that a professor is an expert in something.
It is highly unlikely they are a qualified expert on something relevant to the courts.
Even Turley or professors of constitutional law would be more accpetable filing amicus briefs than as expert witnesses.
Expert witnesses exist to provide expertise to understand difficult FACTUAL evidence. Such as forensics.
Your no getting the point.
I do not know the credentials of the specific professors, but whether they are qualified experts in SOMETHING is not relevant.
What is relevant is are they experts in a domain that they are Qualified to explain FACTUAL evidence that was introduced by one party or another.
It is hard to think of an example of FACTUAL evidence that would be relevant in this proceeding that was beyond the ability of the court to understand.
Expert witnesses are one of the methods that the courts allow to introduce OPINION as evidence. That opinion MUST be about factual evidence that can not clearly be understood by the judge or jury – as an example DNA matches.
If Turley was being used to introduce opinions on th law or constitution – he should file an amicus brief.
You aren’t getting it. Expert witnesses aren’t only supposed to provide factual information but to say, based on their expertise, what is likely to happen. The whole voting issue is dependent on understanding what will be the effect of legislation and to determine whether it is suppressive or not. That’s when one side might call an expert to indicate their view of what would happen, the other side may have an expert of their own that disagrees. You may disagree about the value of having dueling experts, this is our system. Keep in mind the DeSantis rule isn’t limited to voting, it covers anything he disagrees with.
You can not read.
The sole purpose of expert witnesses is to provide opinions about evidence where understanding of that evidence is outside the domain of the jury or lawyers.
I would note that expert witnesses are nearly always also fact witnesses.
An expert will testify that the lab tests they are about to present are tests they ran of evidence that was collected and they will review the chain of custody for that evidence, they will be used by the lawyers to introduce that factual evidence into the record.
The will testify to calibrating instruments, etc.
All fo this is just normal testimony regarding factual evidence.
But when they say “in my professional, opinion the DNA from the defendant matches the DNA of the perpitarator they are then and only then functioning as an “expert witness”.
To the extent that an expert can be used to testify as to what is “likely to happen” – and I am hard pressed to think of when that should be admissible – atleast when challenging legislation. they must FIRST introduce the FACTUAL evidence that their opinion is based on.
Expert witnesses explain factual evidence that requires domain specific knowledge.
With respect to legislation. Opinions regarding the future effects of legislation are outside the domain of the courts.
There are limited reasons that a court can invalidate a law. Generally these divide into facial and as applied challenges.
A facial challenge requires a law to be unconstitutional or in conflict with other law on its face – as a matter of law.
Opinions regarding the effect of a law are not relevant to facial challenges.
And as applied challenges are supposed to be based on how a law DID effect things, not how it might.
You are seeking to improperly combine two types of challenges.
I would further note that even as applied challenges require the law AS APPLIED to be unconstitutional or in conflict with other laws.
It is not the courts role to determine if the effect of a law is good or bad – not hypothtically, and not even after the fact.
Only whether it is constitutional or in conflict with other laws.
Specifically with respect to elections – slowly the supreme court is coming arround to the the right approach.
To the largest extent possible the Courts must stay out of political conflicts over elections.
It is the courts duty to enforce the laws as written.
It is their duty to void violations of the law.
It is not their role to decide what election law should be – aside from whether it is constitutional or in conflict with other law.
There is rarely a basis for courts to intervene in purely political processes – such as determining congressional districts.
While all choices have an effect, there is no such thing as the right effect. There is no such thing as the objectively right way to select congressional districts. That means when the courts intervene they are ALWAYS acting politically and courts should not make political judgement.
Right now the right has lost trust in the courts over election and other decisions. and the left has lost trust over Roe.
Courts often must make unpopular decisions – they are frequently obligated to. But those decisions should be based on the law and constitution, not politics.
When there is not an issue involving the constitution or law – the courts must step out. That includes elections.
We can correct poor political choices of legislators – in fact they are often self punishing acts. correcting errors by the courts is much harder.
Teh courts should not intervenine in the political process unless the law or constitution is being violated.
I do not disagree with dueling experts.
I disagree with you over the legitimate domain of experts, as well as the judical standard of review for election processes.
This would be some examples of the inconvenient expert testimony you prefer not exist.
https://blog.expertpages.com/expertwitness/expert-witnesses-testify-in-lawsuit-against-north-carolina-voting-law.htm
The testimony is not inconvenient, it is irrelevant.
a law can be unconstitutional on its face – that is a legal determination, that is the domain of the courts, and amicci – not expert witnesses.
If and only if a law is facially constitutional, it can be found unconstitutional as applied.
We do not guess at that. We allow facially constitutional laws, and we allow as applied challenges after they have actually been applied, so that we are not guessing.
The “experts” you are citing are not providing expert opinions regarding the actual effect of the law,
they are speculating about what a facially constitutional laws effect MIGHT be, That is not expert witness testimony.
That is consulting ouija boards. regardless it should not have been permitted.
I would note – in the real world this type of speculative testimony is nearly always wrong.
I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t have allowed it. The judge apparently saw things differently. A law can be theoretically constitutional but still violate an act of Congress like, say, The Voting Rights Act. Of course SCOTUS has twice gutted the Voting Rights Act so voter suppression is still alive and well. We need experts to say so because there are a littany of people denying its existence. SCOTUS and Federal Courts still permit it but the excuse can’t be they didn’t know, it’s that they don’t care.
The rule of law is not subject to opinion.
The judge erred. But that happens all the time.
“A law can be theoretically constitutional but still violate an act of Congress like, say, The Voting Rights Act.”
Yup, still a legal – facial question that does not require expert witnesses.
I would note that if two laws are at odds – how is it that you know which should prevail ?
Assuming an election law violates the VRA – why isn’t it the VRA that must yeild – after all the election law is newer.
The answer to that is the same as the answer to how we read the law and constitution – using consistent long established standards,
that is what provides the rule of law.
The parts of the VRA that were gutted were ALWAYS unconstitutional. There is absolutely no executive power in the constitution with regard to elections. All election power belongs to congress and state legislatures.
This is an issue we are having right now – on coming to office Biden directed all federal agencies to facilitate voting.
To work towards a Federal GOTV drive – just like the lawless actions of Zuckerberg in 2020. GoTV far outside of the government in its entirety. Governments role in elections is very limited – it must be otherwise Government becomes an actor in the election influencing the outcome. It is not the domain of government to decide that more or less people should vote. Political parties can do that. Even Zuckerberg can do that – But not through local government.
Regardless no where in the constitution is there any executive branch election power. There are limited places the president can act unilaterally – this is not one of these. Even where the executive can act at the direction of congress – that direction must exist, and it must be narrow and clear. Neither are the case here.
“The parts of the VRA that were gutted were ALWAYS unconstitutional. There is absolutely no executive power in the constitution with regard to elections. All election power belongs to congress and state legislatures.”
The VRA wasn’t executive power, it was Congress. If Congress had a will they could reinstitute those provisions but we aren’t living in those days. I will agree with you on one point in that selecting certain states and communities to require preclearance was likely wrong. It assumed only some of America was racist when there is no state that hasn’t instituted racist voting laws. Preclearance should have applied across the board.
The VRA gave the executive power that even congress does not have.
The power to review laws belongs to the judiciary – not Congress not the executive.
Even congress can not “pre-clear” the laws of a state.
Even the courts can no “pre-clear” the laws of a state.
This was always ridiculously unconstitutional.
Today, DOJ is free to challenge state laws – including election laws in court, and it does so on occasion.
But the law must already be enacted to challenge it and only the courts get to make the determination as to whether it is constitutional or not.
That arrangement is constitutional. The VRA provision was NEVER constitutional.
If you do not like that – change the constitution.
No congress can not re-institute that power.
The courts original acceptance of that portion fo theVRA – was based on a history of discrimination, and a very short duration for the law. SCOTUS essentially winked and nodded at the laws unconstitutionality but left it in place because it would end soon.
Except it did not.
The short duration did not make it constitutional. it just made it so that the court was prepared to turn a blind eye to its unconstitutionality.
Regardless, judicial review is the domain of the courts – not the executive or legislature.
And can not occur until a law is enacted.
“Preclearance should have applied across the board.”
Not without amending the constitution.
SCOTUS didn’t find preclearance in and of itself unconstitutional. They had a problem with singling out specific states and communities. I don’t disagree, they all should have to get permission before doing something unconstitutional instead of waiting years after the new laws are in place before determining (usually by expert testimony) their impact.
Most of the voting laws implemented since Shelby in 2013 would never have passed muster before SCOTUS paved the way.
SCOTUS rarely finds more than they have to.
If you think that preclearance is constitutional – Try it again. It will last only so long as it takes to get a case to SCOTUS.
It was ALWAYS unconstitutional.
It is a usurpation of the legislative and judicial powers.
Those are just the first problems it has.
It is a violation of legal principle of presumption of innocence. While states are not individuals with rights, it is still legal error to presume a state law is wrong and require states to prove to the federal government otherwise.
It is an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutional powers of the states. The federal legislature ALONE has the power to override SOME state election laws – but only by legislation that enacts specific election laws – not by authorizing someone else to review state laws.
The constitution permits the states – with few restrictions to have most any election laws they wish.
The constitution permits the federal government to impose specific uniform election laws throughout the country.
The constitution DOES NOT permit the Executive branch to decide what laws any specific stat can have.
There is only ONE way that a states election laws can be invalidated – that is IN COURT. Where the judicial system – possibly all the way through the Supreme Court determines that a states law is either unconstitutional or in conflict with federal election law.
There is no where in the constitution where the executive (or even the legislative) branches are granted the power of judicial review.
Preclearance is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.
You would have to amend the constitution to get it, and even that might not be enough as you would literally have the constitution at odds with itself.
If you disagree – TRY IT.
I doubt that SCOTUS today would permit executive preclearance on ANY state laws, much less election laws.
The court in the 60’s grasped that preclearance was unconstitutional – much as they grasped Roe was unconstitutional. They just chose to ignore it because the violation was temporary and the problem was significant.
That was a mistake. Nothing that was accomplished by preclearance could not have been accomplished by challenging state election laws.
The courts had ALREADY rejected many state election laws, Further the constitution was amended to bar some election laws.
SCOTUS was wrong not to strike those provisions of the VRA in the 60’s and correct to strike them today.
That does not mean States can do whatever they want.
It just means that the federal govenrment can not “a priori” constrain a states legislative powers.
I would note that it is bad govenrment to “a priori” restrict almost anything.
We do not arrest people because they MIGHT murder someone. We arrest people because they DID murder someone.
Government exists to prevent harm to others. But it can only legitimately do so by punishing harm that has occurred. Crimes that have been committed, contracts that have been broken, Harms after they have occurred.
Covid demonstrates exactly why this is necescary – because Govenrment SUCKS at figuring out what will be harmful and what will not.
The lesson of Covid should be how BAD the “experts” did imposing the “science” on us all by FORCE.
There is nothing they got right, Lockdowns did not work, masks did not work, vaccines did not work.
A REAL scientific debate would have exposed that. But instead of real debate we got self serving and MAYBE well meaning propoganda that is pretty much all instance was WRONG.
Do not get me wrong – absolutely the “experts” should have provided us with advice – lots of experts all saying whatever THEIR experience and research indicated. We should not have had ONE meassage from government employed public health experts – but different messages from all the doctors and scientists and researches in the world. In that environment the messages would have been free to evolve as we learned.
One of th most unbeleivably stupid things we have done is pretty much everything related to children.
We have known from the start that no strain of Covid is a fraction as dangerous to those under 20 as the Flu or Pnumonia.
I am 64 – If you had offered me a experimental vaccine with higher than normal risk in June 2020 – I would have taken it.
But there is no moment – from then through right now that I would have given an experimental vaccine with an unkown long term risk profile to anyone under 20 – certainly not by force.
And yet today – 2 years later when we know far more, and we know the risk to those under 20 is greater than vaccines that the FDA refused to approve in the past – still we have approved covid vaccines for kids – even infants.
What we have is a massive demonstration of why central planning ALWAYS fails.
It NEVER has nor allows enough information to make good decisions.
Those of you on the left do not understand that Freedom is actually a prerequisite for good decision making. We will only end up with most people making good choices when we allow all people freedom and the result is that some people make bad choices.
Of course there is an army of people denying voter suppression – because the data completely contradicts that.
Regardless, your voter supression claim is an As applied not a Facially unconstitutional claim, therefore it can only be made after the law is in place, not based on speculation about the impact, and it must be based on actual proof of an unconstitutional impact – which does not exist.
Minority voting has uniformly increase where purportedly voter suppressive laws have been put in effect.
And they have done so MORE that increases in whites.
Like so many other things – the facts do not support your claims.
There is no legitimate basis for a court to allow speculative testimony in any case. Expert or otherwise.
Expert witnesses are not there to argue the law. That is what lawyers and amicci are for.
They are their to they are they to provide an oppinion based on experience that explains actual data that is beyond the lay ability of judges, juries or lawyers to evaluate.
But it requires ACTUAL DATA – not speculation.
“Minority voting has uniformly increase where purportedly voter suppressive laws have been put in effect.”
Increased voting, where it occurs, is often due to a concentrated effort to fight the barriers erected against them. Total voting isn’t always the way voter suppression works. Packing most minotities into one or two districts may guarantee a couple of minority seats in a state where the population might suggest much higher representation. It’s what Mississippi just did and SCOTUS said it was okay. Florida is doing it. The net effect is to decrease minority representation and support white supremacy.
“Increased voting, where it occurs, is often due to a concentrated effort to fight the barriers erected against them.”
False and irrelevant, it has continued to remain high year after year.
“Total voting isn’t always the way voter suppression works. Packing most minotities into one or two districts may guarantee a couple of minority seats in a state where the population might suggest much higher representation. It’s what Mississippi just did and SCOTUS said it was okay. Florida is doing it. The net effect is to decrease minority representation and support white supremacy.”
Actually you are completely incorrect. Democrats The VRA and subsequent SCOTUS rules Required states to create minority majority districts – federally forced gerrymandering. Republicans have been fighting EXACTLY what you are calling voter suppression for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson
Further you seem to be bad at math.
If you have a state with 20% blacks, and the congressional districts are all created to have 20% blacks in them – what YOUR florida Profs are calling voter efficiency – when it is republicans vs. democrats not Blacks, then you are highly unlikely to end up with a black representative.
But if you require – as the VRA does to make efforts to create minority majority districts, you will likely get 2 black majority districts, but those elected in other districts will have no interest in the needs of black voters because they have none.
Pretty much all the “evidence” I have heard that is presented by the left with regard to stupid claims of voter supression are idiotic nonsense unsupported by the facts.
I would separately note that “voter supression” should government actually engage in it would not be unconstitutional.
There is no right to easy voting. Only that whether easy or hard it is not intentionally discriminatory.
You believing or understanding it, isn’t the criteria do determine whether or not it exists. Separately, there is no question it’s intentional. Listen to the people doing it.
“You believing or understanding it, isn’t the criteria do determine whether or not it exists.”
Correct – FACTS are.
“Separately, there is no question it’s intentional. Listen to the people doing it.”
Another error. Some people say stupid things. The law holds people accountable for what they do not what they say.
Further a legal act, remains legal, even if you had bad intentions.
If you come charging at me with a knife or gun, It is self defense to kill you – whether I like you or hate you,
It is self defense even if at some prior time I vowed to kill you.
Minimum wage laws were originally imposed with the intent of screwing blacks.
Now they are imposed with the intent of helping them.
The actual impact of minimum wage laws has not changed – they harm the prospects of unskilled workers who are disproportionately minorities.
But the intention of those passing the law has changed 180.
The as applied constitutionality of a law does not depend on the intent of those crafting the law.
It depends on the EFFECT of the law.
Lets presume that intent was an actual factor in the constitutionality of a law.
Why are UoF profs needed as expert witnesses to testify as to the intent of those who passed the law, when as you claim they have made their intentions publicly clear ?
You do not seem to understand the purpose and permissible uses of expert witnesses.
“You do not seem to understand the purpose and permissible uses of expert witnesses.”
You keep saying judges err when they permit it? Just possibly you don’t understand when they are acceptable?
There is hundreds of years of law on this. The use of experts in the way you are seeking is modern, pretty exclusively from left wing nut judges, and WRONG as a matter of law.
It violates not just centuries of law, but the entire purpose of Expert witnesses.
Courts are not a place we debate public polices. Courts have no role in chosing public policies.
That is the exclusive domain of the legislature.
It is only the left that sees all branches of government as a policy making tool.
The purpose of the courts with respect to judicial review is to determine the constitutionality of a law.
When a law is facially challenged there is no role for expert witnesses at all. There are not facts to consider – only the law and the constitution.
To the extent that “expert oppinions” on the law are considered – those are via amicus briefs.
An Amicus brief is a legal argument, It is not sworn testimony – it does not need to be, it is legal opinion. Opinions are not offered under oath – that serves no purpose. If what your professors sought to get considered could be at all – that would be in an amicus brief. Not as expert testimony.
Expert testimony is admissible in an “as applied challenge” – to introduce and explain factual data – not speculation.
An as applied challenge and the opinions of these prof’s as experts requires the law actually is inplace in order to gather the data that it is unconstitutional “as applied”.
There is no such thing as an “as might be applied” challenge.
the University of Florida barred professors from providing expert testimony about voting rights?
Huge difference between Statements under oath, and sharing opinions about Science and its use to control people
One is more desirable and legal, and because they are experts more likely to be true?
Grow up, whiner! “Minorities” have been coerced into thinking they are something special—to say, privileged.Well, sorry be the bearer of bad news–they are NOT. Get an appropriate ID, register, and vote, preferably in person….and only once per election. The dead, the unregistered, and non-citizens DO NOT qualify. Sorry! “Dems da rules!”. It is REALLY that simple.
The people who know the least about a subject profess to know the most. Ignorance in your case is not bliss.
Canada is the country that elected a guy that attacked truckers and anyone that wouldn’t take the vaccine and then attacked our SCOTUS for denying females body autonomy. Take the vaccine or be arrested is ok but let a state determine abortion restrictions (usually aligned with most western nations) and you are evil.
I would like to say something positive about our social contract but the awful truth is we suffer under the thumb of a failed state.
We used to say that about Mexico but Americans are moving to Mexico for relief.
Canadians fled to Mexico before the dictator Trudeau clamped down on their freedoms. Trudeau is a disgrace.
What is surreal is that this was supposed to be an academic forum. In the world of medicine and the healing arts sciences, practitioners are held to the “standard of care.” Where does “standard of care” originate? Who determines these standards? They come from studies, academic institutions, peer review, vigorous debate, and anecdotal observations reported from providers in the trenches. Science will never move forward if there is a lockstep agreement among researchers, academics and providers. It can be messy, especially when it comes to economics, research grants, and politics are influenced by a smaller number of gatekeepers, some of which have conflicts of interest.
One medical discovery that comes to mind, off the top of my head is that of H. Pylori’s role in peptic ulcer disease and gastritis. It took guts and determination Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr. J. Robin Warren to prevail against scorn and stiff resistance by the scientific world. Their research eventually prevailed and these pioneers were awarded the Nobel prize. Millions of patients owe their treatment and relief of suffering to these courageous scientists.
We should welcome vigorous debate, dissent, and questioning of authority. Scientific papers should be scrutinized. There is no such thing as “the science is settled.” At best, results of a scientific study falls into the category of “best fitting line” or levels of confidence, or the “the results suggest….”
He raised some good concerns. I’m old. I got a reaction to covid booster that gave me several bad illnesses. Don’t change Dicks in the Middle of a screw. Vote for Nixon in 72. And go ahead and fair all your good professors. You’re going to Hell in a multi human basket.
The professor of immunology raises some significant issues about the Covid vaccine and especially in children under 6 and that has generated quite a bit a discussion in the United States also. Vaccines have been used for decades in a variety of groups depending on risk factors and age.
Influenza has typically been a scourge of the very young and the those over 65 and those were the target groups in many cases for vaccination. In another Influenza Epidemic the influenza vaccine was less needed in people who went thru the 1957-1958 epidemic because they were were resistant to a more recent Flu that was almost identical to the 1957-1958 variety. Covid has a very marked age distribution with near nil mortality in the age group under 6.
You have to weigh the risk of the vaccine vs the risk of the disease. Smallpox is a good example. The smallpox vaccine is still available but is almost never given because it is so rare the the risk of side effects exceeds the benefit. You keep the vaccine available because small pox could recur in a pandemic in a population now only lightly protected.
Medicine is not so pure and science driven as some lay people think. There is personal conflict, animus, bias, conflict of interest, greed, stupidity and all in medicine just like any other human endeavor. Read the Wikipedia article someday on High dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant in the treatment of breast cancer. Not one of medicines more shining moments and as an insider in medicine I could lay bare even more. That is why open discussion in medicine and science is so key to advancement . I thought we were past the point where the Church of Thought Suppression or others could suppress discussion of science. I guess not. As Prof Turley pointed out the alleged misinformation was not identified or refuted.
I have no animus against the Covid vaccine since I am a transplant patient who has had the Moderna vaccine (2 injections) and 2 boosters. I am also a retired physician trained in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care and served a function as a clearinghouse for peer reviewed and non peer reviewed information for a local group of about 200 providers during the first 1-1 1/2 years of this pandemic, since I had the time and could not help clinically.
Doctor, well stated!
I agree with everything you said,Doctor, but since Turley went on the Fox payroll, I question his motives about everything he writes nowadays. Basically, his job is to throw red meat to the disciples, and this piece would likely be viewed by the disciples as support for refusing the vaccine for themselves or their children. Fox knows the disicples will believe anything, especially the Big Lie, and that they view themselves as wise and smarmy for supporting Trump, who has always downplayed COVID and that they view with skepticism anything coming from the CDC, because the CDC made Trump look bad.
Nutacha,
Like all left wing nuts – you waste massive time and suffer delusions from trying to get into the head of others. And pretending you know their motives.
You can not know what is inside anothers head.
You can not know more about them than what they have said.
When you pretend you know anothers intentions and motives – you are nearly always wrong.
Stick to what people SAY or do.
What has Turley said that is innaccurate, or wrong ? Turley is not perfect – he makes mistakes – lots of grammatical ones.
But address what he has said or done – not your attempts at clairvoyance.
Turley used to appear on left wing nut News – MSNBC, CNN, …
But because he would not spin his views to suit their wishes – they do not invite him back.
Turley’s remarks are not always what Fox or Fox viewers want to hear – but to their credit Fox and those on the right tolerate even listen to well argued positions that deviate from their own.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
I literally laughed out loud at your unflinching hypocrisy. You try to claim I don’t know what’s inside Turley’s head while also claiming non-Trump media won’t have Turley on their programs because he “won’t spin his views.” Aren’t YOU the one who is claiming what’s inside the heads of non-Trump media? Why do you think Turley actually believes the offal Fox shovels?
Turley sold his credibility when he went on Fox’s payroll. He carefully parses what he says, trying to make it fit the Fox narrative by implication but not actually supporting it, which unsophisticated Trumpers don’t pick up on, he ignores BIG political stories, ignores the Big Lie and anything negative to the ReTrumplican agenda. He is often attacked in law blogs and by Constitutional scholars. That’s non-Trump media don’t use him.
It is a fact that the MSM has ceased to hire Turley. Why is a different question.
Regardless, Fox allows him on despite the fact that he is often at odds with them. The MSM does not.
I rarely view Fox, or any of the MSM. I do not like certain hosts – whether Fox or MSM more over style than issues. As an example Hannity has greated on me for as long as I can recall.
But my distate for their style has nothing to do with FACTS.
In my limited experience Fox does a much better job of distinguishing straight news from editorials, and tends to better insulate straight news from political bias. And within oppinion segments, is more tolerant of diverging views and less likely to be completely off base.
But for the most part I get my news and opinions from more independent journalists.
NYT and Wapo are pretty much only trustworthy when they are reporting stories that go against the woke narrative and that they can not avoid reporting.
But people like Matt Taibi or Glenn Greenwald, or Barri Weis – liberals who have been driven out of the MSM form the core of my sources.
I do not presume to know what Turley thinks I stick to what he has said.
Nor do I care who Turley works for – I expect him to make a living – a very good one if he can.
I do not always agree with him. But I always value his view.
If he were to have shifted his views to be more palletable to the left – i would lose that respect.
If he appeared to me to have shifted his views to be more palletable to the right – I would lose that respect.
But I do expect that Turley will slowly get Red Pilled.
Red Pilling is confronting the bat $hit crazy nonsense of the left.
Many of my sources are red pilled actual liberals.
“Turley sold his credibility when he went on Fox’s payroll.”
Nope, That is stupid leftwing nonsense.
Turley’s credibility is based on what he does and what he says.
“He carefully parses what he says,”
I expect him to be careful in what he says.
“trying to make it fit the Fox narrative by implication but not actually supporting it,”
False. Turley’s appearances are no different than when he was on MSM – except that Fox will tolerate more diverse oppinions.
Fox frequently allows left wing nuts on the show.
“which unsophisticated Trumpers don’t pick up on”
The same”unsophisticated” people who were right from the start on the collusion delusion ? or the Biden’s global graft ?
“he ignores BIG political stories”
?????
“ignores the Big Lie”
The big lie that the Russians colluded with Trump ?
The Big lie that Hunter Biden’s laptop was russian disinformation ?
“He is often attacked in law blogs and by Constitutional scholars.”
And yet, he proves right and they prove wrong.
Honestly the constitution is not all that hard – the text is available to anyone.
To the small extent that historical context actually matters – we have actual history.
The response to alleged misinformation is more information – not enforced silence.
Diseases have a profile. You noted the different profiles of some influenza strains.
Covid has possibly the most dramatic age profile of any incestuous disease.
Outside of those with serious comorbidity the death rate for those under 20 is almost zero.
There is no possible vaccine that would justify the risk to those under 20.
Nor is this new knowledge the age profile was known in march 2020 – long before the vaccine, and has been repeatedly confirmed since.
I am not “anti-vax”. There were experimental biohacker versions of the mRNA vaccine that were potentially available in April 2020
I fully supported allowing people to get those – at their own risk and cost.
Developing the Vaccines in the incredibly short time period was an absolute marvel – Trump gets credit for bulldozing red tape out of the way.
Support for development testing and choice is NOT the same as support for mandates and stupidity.
I have been vaccinated out the whazzo. I do not regret that choice. But I would not make the same choices based on the knowledge I have today.
That is one of the reasons that free choice is critical.
We do not have all the answers. We often do not know enough to make choices about relative risks when we have to make those choices.
We are also each unique, with different circumstances. There is no correct answer – much less correct one size fits all answer.
Increasingly it appears that the mRNA vaccines are on net slightly negative – they cause slightly more harm than benefit.
Those that data is preliminary.
But there is reason to beleive that the non mRNA vaccines are on NET better.
Again the fact that we did not know so much and we have subsequently learned so much more is a reason these things MUST be choices.
Laval Cabal
Let’s speak with clarity. To be anti – absolute free speach, is to be anti-American, anti-freedom. There is no gray area. This is black and white. This is one more victory of the Globalists against Western Nationalism. It is another battle in the death by a thousand cuts war they are waging and winning against individual sovereignty. The Globalists and their minions are the 21 Century “Third Reich.”
21% of Canada’s population is foreign born. Guess how they vote.
My wife is a naturalized citizen of the U.S. so it’s not like I’m anti-immigrant. I just don’t want communists and jihadis running this country like they run Canada.
Fascist don’t allow dissent!
Being a University Professor is not a “do anything you want without consequences”’job. You must uphold professional ethics, and part of those ethics is academic honesty. When a professor spreads lies and false information then they should be fired.
Sammy. the man is a professor of immunology. Leading a discussion about Covid response. Explain in detail exactly what is wrong with his words or actions.
Sam so when Conservative FIRE PEOPLE because they don’t like what they say…you are fine with that?
That would depend on the job and what was said.
Regardless, when is the last time you have read of a conservative firing someone for expressing a view they did not like inside the domain of their expertise ?
Frankly when is the last time you have heard of a conservative firing someone over speech ?
There is a tsunami of firings by the left – often of those on the left for even the most minor deviations from dogma in academic areas where diversity of thought is how knowledge is actually advanced.
Your going to have to do better than nonspecific hypotheticals.
The “lie” is that children should get Vaxed. The Evidence from the start has been that there would be little possible benfit for those under 20, much less under 5, and substantial risk.
Covid deaths for those under 20 without comorbidity are pretty much ZERO. While those from adverse reactions are not.
Frankly the evidence for Vaxing under 40 unless you have comorbitidies is very poor – especially if you are male.
And there are other issues.
There is a growing body of evidence that the All cause death rate post vaccination for those receiving the mRNA vaccine under 65 is higher than those who do not get it. The non-mRNA vaccines appear to have a real all cause reduction.
If you “uphold” academic ethics – then the failure to be willing to examine and discuss the actual data is unethical.
Whether you like it or not – the Data does not support vaccinating those under 20 – much less those under 5.
Further it is increasingly unlikely there is ANY benefit for those under 65 to the mRNA vaccines at all.
” When a professor spreads lies and false information then they should be fired.”
If that were the case, most of the leftist professors would be gone.
“When a professor spreads lies and false information then they should be fired.”
There are going to be a lot of Marxist professors looking for jobs.
Canada may have passed the point of no return regarding individual rights. Alas
@whig
I think they, along with the UK, passed that point a while back. They have been a great object lesson that we would do well to heed. We are where they were a number if years ago; their radical progressives took over. We are still at the point in the US where they are only *attempting* it. It’s now or never, people.
Seems incredible, but the censors have no shame in crushing any dissent.
Trudeau seems determined to make Canada a liberal theocracy (see truckers’ protest, guns, racism).
Lefties are overreaching – as usual.
An editor declared a Professor of immunology of being wrong? It is also common to just declare something wrong, but avoid explaining why. That is exactly what is going on with the Dobbs decision. The left going crazy, but never citing exactly what is wrong about the decision.
If you are looking for in depth analysis of what is wrong with the Dobbs decision, you may want to look at the Dobbs dissent.
For the most part the Dissent is why Dobbs is bad policy, not why Roe is constitutional.
Policy is NOT he supreme courts business, Law and constitution are.
Alito did an excellent job of making mincemeat of Roe an Casey.
There is no right to an abortion. That is a ludicrously stupid claim.
But Dobbs err’s because you CAN get to abortion through other rights.
You can not get to it via privacy rights – but if you want to claim you can – then
shut down the J6 committee, and all your investigations of Trump or other republicans
because those DIRECTLY offend the fifth amendment – which is where the right to privacy comes from.
You can get to it via the right to control of your own body.
But that will not get you to the right to kill the fetus only remove it.
Dobbs is the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS did precisely what the SCOTUS swore an oath to do.
Such a rarity.
Cancelled!
Did you know that there are huge drops in birth rates throughout the world AFTER the shots were implemented? Did you know that they basically had to invent a new category to cover all the adult deaths that they can’t explain? Sudden Adult Death Syndrome
Go get your shot! If you are stupid enough to believe, we don’t need you procreating.
I’m 68 and I chose to be vaxxed and double boosted. NTL, I caught Covid in May. Very mild, and the after effects of shortness of breath and fatigue have passed.. I support your choice to not take the jab and wish you well, but don’t begrudge me my right to choose
What person has ever been denied?
What about hydroxychloroquine ? should we denied that? Or ivermectin? cant deny access to that. Support the choice, right.
Part of the issue is that Canada does not have a right to speak freely the way that we do here in the United States. This particular ase illustrates the point very clearly.
In the UK, you can be arrested for hate speech. Think about that. Words that are deemed hateful towards another but are devoid of threat of violence can get you arrested. One comedian in Scotland was arrested for teaching his girlfriend’s, now his wife, pug a Nazi salute. The case took 4 years through the court system and was appealed through the UK and EU criminal justice system and he was still found guilty. Canada has similar provisions.
The next time someone says something that you disagree with, my dear frienemy Mr. Silberman included, be thankful that we all have the right to speak freely whether we are wrong or not.
Remember when Biden and Fauci said if you get vaccinated, you will not get covid and you cannot transmit it to others? Yeah. A lie.
I do not know anyone seeking to deny you the right to get vaxed.
Plenty of people seek to deprive people of the right not to or to choice other propholactyc’s or treatment.
Many do not have a “choice” whether or not to “take the jab” since it is being mandated and forced in order to keep your job to provide for your family, etc.
That is true.
My wife was denied her free will, mandated to get the jab or lose her job.
Coercion,
noun
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
You sound like one of the high profile people who say on social media, “Hey I am fully vaxxed and I have covid now for the 3rd time, but I am so grateful to be protected by the covid vaxxine! Be sure to take the jabs!”
It’s all lies and propaganda.
And then we see young healthy people getting mini strokes, bells palsy, neurological disorders, heart attacks, etc. Pray for your health and the health of the triple and quadruple jabbed. You are all gonna need it.
Exactly