No Evidence Needed At James Coates' Trial

Updated: Jun 14

1. Unintended Consequences

Our government’s embarrassing arrest of Pastor James Coates has deteriorated into a nagging wound. And now our officials fear they have bitten off more than they can chew. Pastor Coates’ defensive trial is slated for May 3rd, but in a surprise offensive, he and the Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) are challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s lockdowns and Covid restrictions.*


Such a challenge is only fair. Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Hinshaw, and her rag-tag conglomerate of politicians and experts have very seriously changed our way of life. If doctors and politicians wield such power that they can bankrupt families, if they have overseen the most terrible mental depression in decades, and order people to live like tigers locked in a cage, they better have good reason for doing so.


So then imagine our vexation when we were recently informed that the Alberta courts will honour the government’s grovelling and will not require them to produce evidence, at Coates' May 3rd trial, affirming the constitutionality of lockdowns. We are so weary of the government’s untouchable legal privilege. Dr. Hinshaw and public legislators will not have to show that her restrictions are legal. Why not? Should the lockdowns not, at the very least, be investigated? Is there no obligation to do so? People’s lives are at stake.


2. A Revolution Against Nature

For too long, the Government of Alberta (and Canada) has shovelled their cruel Covid restrictions down our throats “for the good of the province.” In fact, our Premier, who is the exact opposite of who he claimed to be, justifies the lockdowns by saying the government has a “moral responsibility” to protect its citizens. He insinuates the theory of Alberta’s Covid restrictions is that they save more lives than they take (surely he would have evidence to prove it?).


But if a theory fails in real life, if it sounds plausible in the mind but spectacularly flops when put into action, it’s a bad theory. No matter how “moral” or “ethical” proponents of the theory claim it is, if it suppresses the nature of man, it handcuffs his ability to act as he is intended, then such a theory is evil.**


For example, a cult might preach that we should gouge out our eyes and “see” using our hands. They might even say that it is moral to do so. But our course, if people obey the cult’s doctrine, they will suffer because it disregards their created nature. Misery will follow such fools all the days of their life, for no matter how hard they try, no matter how “moral” they want to be, the fact remains that the reality of their creation will never allow their hands to discern visible light. Man cannot revolt against God’s laws and win.


So it might be true that there are zealous champions of lockdowns like Dr. Hinshaw and Premier Kenney, but what of it? It’s a flawed theory with a worse outcome. What, after all, is a lockdown if not a revolt against human nature? Burdening a tired people with them suffocates part of our intended purpose and treats us as less than human. Life demands physical community and companionship. We’re not made to be locked in our homes; we’re made to see people. Seniors aren’t supposed to suffer alone but live out their years in peace. Fathers aren’t made to subsist on welfare; they’re created to provide for their families. And children aren’t made to stay in isolation, but to learn and play with friends. Lives are deteriorating, abuse is inflating, suicide is skyrocketing, and the province is being destroyed.


3. A Forbidden Relationship

For what reason then would the courts not want to hear the JCCF’s challenge? Does the government’s unpreparedness, their pleading to delay the trial, not make the courts think that perhaps something is wrong? Doesn’t such desperation to defer testimony make a man more suspicious and not less? Our rulers, constantly reaffirming the morality of their decisions, can’t even produce the evidence necessary to justify their choices that have cost so many lives.


Logically, elected officials and courts must be separated because man is fallen. Permit the leader capacity to carry out his will without fear of consequence, and the sin that infects every heart will dictate his every command. The courts are to act as a check on that power; they appeal to a Law that transcends man. If the ruler rebels against this supreme Law and therefore acts unjustly, the courts can strike down the action, and the country steers back towards justice.


But the Alberta Courts and Government have committed forbidden adultery with each other. The balance of power is gone. Now our officials really are free to do what they want. If they commit an unjust action, as has been done, the courts simply delay a challenge indefinitely. It is as though the government has committed no infraction at all. What are supposed to be two different entities, the courts and government, naturally opposing forces harmonizing to produce order and justice, like water and a dam, are now one. The dam is useless. The water flows where it wants, and except for putting pressure on at the polls, Premier Kenney’s government does what it wills.




* All information regarding Pastor Coates' trial was found here


** See Rothbard, "Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature" here



If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian’s perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!

0 comments