*原本只是想搜索确定疫苗数据公布新闻事实的，无意中挖着了金矿。
(加拿大)法官A. Pazaratz裁决一名母亲无需按政府要求让12岁和10岁的两个孩子接种(新冠疫苗)
判决书**开篇连环绝问，犹如天问：
[1] When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom?
是什么时候开始问问题变成非法的了？特别是在法庭里？
[2] And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake?
又是什么时候开始法官要听答案变成过时了？特别是在这种关系到孩子们生命的情况下？
[3] How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?
我们是如何放松警惕，让“不可接受的信仰”这几个词组合在了一起？在一个民主国家？在公正的法律天平上？
[4] Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence
当“司法须知”被偷换概念从证据规则变成了证据替代品，法官们应该袖手旁观吗？
[5] And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet “misinformation” has crept into the court lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying “You’re so wrong, I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.”
“误信息”（misinformation）是一个真正的词吗？还是它变成了一种粗鄙的、自私自利的工具，用于预先避免审查并抹黑对手？用于非法合理化问题，策略性地回避回答。在我们的分权抗衡制度中，全盘否认几乎从来不可接受。每个当事方始终有责任证明他们的指控，但“误信息”已经悄悄地渗透到法庭词汇中。这是一种幼稚但险恶的方式说“你错得离谱，我甚至不必解释你错在哪里”。
[6] What does any of this have to do with family court? Sadly, these days it has everything to do with family court.
这些和家庭法庭有什么关系呢？可悲的是，如今这与家庭法庭有千丝万缕的联系。
法官在紧接着的解答中针砭时弊（但不要据此以为这法官判决书不专业，请有时间自己去阅读原文**，其中引用法律条款，对比同类案件判决分析，法理通透明晰。这里摘录的是不引用法律术语，我等常人容易懂的；是全文很少的部分，但感觉点睛的）：
[7] Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even dares to ask really important questions – the resulting polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a daily basis.
[8] It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends -- when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies.
[9] The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we are drifting from cherished values.
[10] The father wants two children ages 12 and 10 to receive COVID vaccinations. The mother is opposed.
[11] Now, answer honestly. Did the previous paragraph give you enough information to form an opinion about how this case should turn out?
[12] We’re all weary. We all wish COVID would just go away. But pandemic fatigue is no excuse for short-cuts and lowering our standards. We all have to guard against the unconscious bias of thinking “Why won’t these people just do what the government tells them to do?”
……
while the court system won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either.
……
Children may not have wisdom. But they have Charter rights and undeniable emotions.
……
最后感叹一下，要成为一个真正好法官--不仅仅是优秀成功的法官，除了要有专业，有推理逻辑，还要有思想，有了思想，还要有文笔，而这些都只是基础，在这些基础之上，最关键要有天赋人性情感，最后加上信仰勇气。请参考他的结尾附言：
POSTSCRIPT:
[91] It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business.
[92] But I am fully vaccinated. My choice.
[93] I mention this because I am acutely aware of how polarized the world has become.
[94] We should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one another.
———————
说明：
*蓝色字段落为eFAN说明或翻译或简评。
黑色加粗体英文为引用原文(网上尚未发现中文翻译，复活节后若回看此处，或许会有了），或网上他人中文报道文字。
**判决书原文链接：https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1198/2022onsc1198.html
[英文时评文章：https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/87047 ]
==============
附：新闻求真
（美国）联邦法官判决FDA必须公开疫苗数据
（FDA原本的计划要到2096年才全部公开）
—-----------
—-----------
在FDA的政府官网上，找不到该消息
—-----------
网上新闻搜索，我们第一眼看到的：
—----
而下面这个搜索引擎给出结果相关性高得多了。仍请注意有否你心目中的主流媒体报道
博文
