When Mercy Becomes Conditional, Justice Is Already Dead

Earlier this week, I shared the story of Universal Ostrich Farm in Edgewood, BC — a family farm whose flock was ordered to be destroyed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). These birds had survived H5N1 avian influenza, recovered, and were producing antibodies in their eggs that could have had real value for animal health. The farm asked to have the surviving birds tested to confirm immunity. The CFIA refused, and ordered the entire flock to be killed.

I expected disagreement. I did not expect how many people would respond with one line:

“They got what they deserved.”

The justification was that the owners, Dave Bilinski and Karen Espersen, had been involved in a business dispute thirty years ago during the 1990s ostrich investment boom. Therefore, some argued, they do not deserve sympathy, protection, or even fair treatment today.

This belief — that past imperfection cancels present dignity — is not simply misguided. It is a direct threat to justice itself. Because if mercy is only for the flawless, then no one is entitled to it.

What Actually Happened at the Farm

The flock contracted H5N1 avian influenza, likely from migratory waterfowl — the primary carriers of the virus. Some birds died. Many survived. Surviving birds develop antibodies, and in ostriches, those antibodies are passed into their eggs. These IgY antibodies have recognized immunological value and are used in veterinary and therapeutic research.

The owners requested immunity testing for the recovered birds.

CFIA refused to allow the testing.
Not because the science didn’t support it.
But because the Stamping-Out Policy prohibits testing once infection is detected.

The CFIA threatened fines up to $200,000 if the farm sought independent testing.

The birds were ordered destroyed regardless of recovery or antibody production.

This was not evidence-based disease management.
It was policy obedience.

Were the Birds “Injected With COVID”? No.

Some online claims say the birds were “injected with COVID” and therefore research ethics required their destruction.

This is incorrect on two levels:

1. The Birds Were Not Injected With the Virus
There is no evidence the birds were exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
What may have been used is a non-infectious antigen — a protein that stimulates antibody production without causing disease.

Injecting an antigen is not infection.

2. Research Ethics Do Not Require Automatic Euthanasia
Under Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines, animals used in research do not have to be destroyed unless:

They are suffering,
They pose an active, uncontrollable risk,
Or the study protocol specifically requires it.

Recovered, healthy, immune animals do not meet those criteria.

The destruction was not research ethics — it was stamping-out disease policy.

Addressing the Claim: “COVID Doesn’t Exist”

Another narrative suggests COVID-19 was proven to be fake when Pat King asked Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer for a “purified isolate of the virus.”

The misunderstanding is this:

Pat King requested a format of “isolation” that does not exist for any virus, not because COVID is fake, but because viruses are identified through:

Genetic sequencing,
Microscopy,
Cell culture behavior,
Replication patterns.

The request was impossible in format, not in reality.

People believed it because they were exhausted and searching for truth in a time of censorship and punishment — but that does not change scientific fact:

The virus exists.
Antibodies are real.
The ostriches’ immunity was biologically credible.

Which makes the destruction even harder to justify.

If the Threat Was So Severe, Why Was the Response So Casual?

CFIA repeatedly called the farm a “hot zone.”
Yet the on-site response did not resemble a high-risk biohazard environment.

Minimal disposable PPE
Loose-fitting masks
Gloves removed to use phones
No decontamination zone
No quarantine procedure

If the virus were as dangerous as claimed, the response would have required:

Sealed positive-pressure suits,
Strict air handling,
Controlled access,
Mandatory sterilization protocols.

None of that occurred.

The practice did not match the claim of danger.

This suggests the destruction was not about biosecurity — it was about enforcing policy compliance.

The Policy Comes From Outside Canada

The stamping-out approach is not Canadian in origin.
It comes from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and is tied to the global One Health framework with the WHO.

Its purpose is to maintain international trade status, not to eliminate disease.

But since the real carriers — wild migratory birds — cannot be controlled, the policy ends up destroying:

Family farms,
Genetic bloodlines,
Food security,
Rural livelihoods.

It does not stop the disease.
It stops the farmers.

The Moral Question: Who Deserves Mercy?

Some say past business disputes mean the farmers deserve no help now.

But scripture is clear:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Romans 3:23

If imperfection disqualifies someone from justice, then nobody is safe.

“But God demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Romans 5:8

Mercy is not given to the deserving.
It is given because none of us are.

To deny mercy is to deny the foundation of justice itself.

On “Revolution Talk” and the Misuse of the Statute of Westminster

In times like this, when people see families harmed and government power go unchecked, frustration can turn into anger. Online, this often takes the form of comments like:

“Everyone supporting the farm is a grifter.”
“Protesting is weak.”
“We should arrest the politicians ourselves.”
“It’s time.”

But when you ask:

“Time for what?”

there is no answer — because these calls to action are rarely coming from people who are prepared to act. They come from behind screens, from people who are not the ones:

Facing fines
Standing in court
Putting their names on affidavits
Losing income, land, or animals
Or taking real personal risk

They want someone else to carry the consequences.

This is not strategy.
It is spectatorship disguised as courage.

Much of this talk stems from a misunderstanding of the Statute of Westminster (1931).

What the Statute Actually Did

The Statute of Westminster recognized Canada as politically independent from Britain.
It meant Canada could make its own laws without British approval.

It did not:

Abolish Canadian law
Place citizens above legal authority
End the role of Parliament
Or grant individuals “sovereign” status outside the legal system

It confirmed national sovereignty, not individual exemption from law.

Why This Matters

Believing you are “above the law” does not free you — it disarms you.
People who have followed these claims have lost court cases, property, custody, farms, savings, and sometimes their freedom.

Not because their instinct was wrong,
but because their strategy was.

If We Are Going to Fight — We Must Fight Reality, Not Fantasy

Real change requires: