A judge bans a man from taking his 10-year-old child again to protests against health measures. She asserted that it is not in the young person’s interest to be exposed to the words and the risk of violence that comes with participating in such gatherings.
The man had notably demonstrated in Ottawa with his son against the sanitary measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.
On the mother’s side, not only does she want the child to be vaccinated – while the father refuses – but she is opposed to him finding himself in the heart of stormy demonstrations. She does not want him to be exposed “to risks of violence as well as abusive and inappropriate remarks”, is it reported in the decision of Judge Nathalie Pelletier, of the Superior Court, rendered last week.
Before the magistrate, the mother also reported having learned, through the child, that the father told him to lie about his age so as not to wear a face covering in public places. When he is back home, the young person disputes the usefulness of the sanitary measures, she added.
For his part, the father argues that the child does not need to be vaccinated, because his immune system protects him adequately. As for demonstrations – the only place to defend your rights and express yourself freely, he says – they pose no risk.
In Ottawa, everything went peacefully, he said. If the gathering had degenerated, he would have immediately left the scene with his child, he said before Judge Pelletier. He says he wants to pass on democratic values to him, such as freedom of expression and the right to make his own choices, and believes that his son had an enriching experience there.
The judge authorized the mother to have the child vaccinated, following the recommendations of Public Health, as have done so far all Quebec judges faced with such a disagreement between parents.
Turning to the question of the demonstrations, the magistrate recalls that any decision concerning a young person must be taken in the best interests of the latter and in respect of his rights.
According to the judge, it is recognized by the courts (these facts therefore do not have to be proven) that, during these gatherings, “the remarks made by the participants are hardly laudatory against the government and that, on the other hand, hand, there is a serious risk that it could degenerate quickly”.
Moreover, the father does not deny that the child was exposed to such words or that there is a risk of violence, reports the magistrate. She judges that he “clears himself” by asserting that he cannot control what other people say and that it is in any case part of “free expression”.
Given the context, Judge Pelletier affirmed that it is not in the “best interests of the child” to be taken to demonstrations against sanitary measures and prohibited his presence there – but not to other types of gatherings.