Not because he proved masks don't work but because:
The ruling concluded that the tribunal’s decision was “an error of law and a clear misdirection,” meaning the decision was “clearly wrong and cannot stand.”
“He didn’t prove masks are ineffective and the mandates illegal; he just proved that them saying masks are effective is wrong and that them enforcing the mandates is illegal”...But ya know, def not the exact same thing, totally different- just go back to sleep
Not for the court to decide on masks. Does not mean they thought his opinion about masks was wrong. He should not have been banned for expressing his opinion.
If only this was reported by MSM.
If only you could get high in court and win.
Excellent
Not because he proved masks don't work but because:
What is that in English for us non-legal plebes?
“He didn’t prove masks are ineffective and the mandates illegal; he just proved that them saying masks are effective is wrong and that them enforcing the mandates is illegal”...But ya know, def not the exact same thing, totally different- just go back to sleep
Thank you Fren. I understand the difference now.
They clearly broke the law.
Not for the court to decide on masks. Does not mean they thought his opinion about masks was wrong. He should not have been banned for expressing his opinion.
Wearing a mask to stop a virus is like standing behind a chain link fence to stop a shotgun blast.
...or a swarm of hornets.