When Danielle Smith was chosen by the United Conservative Party of Alberta to replace Jason Kenney as their leader early last month and consequentially became that province’s premier she started off her premiership with a bang by giving an exceptionally great speech. Even if we had not heard a word of it we would know it to be very good from the outrage it provoked on the part of Alberta’s socialists and the clowns in the legacy media, that is to say, the print and broadcast news outlets that predate cable news, talk radio, and the internet, which in Canada are all hopelessly corrupt having been bought off years ago by the dimwitted creep and lout who currently occupies the Prime Minister’s Office. The best response to the legacy media, other than to cut oneself off from it altogether, is to look at what they are promoting and root for the opposite and to look at what they are saying and believe the opposite. So when they began to howl and rage and storm and demand that Smith apologize for saying that the unvaccinated had experienced the most discrimination of any group in her lifetime, their reaction in itself was a powerful indicator of the truth of Smith’s words.
It has now been a few generations since the old liberalism succeeded in generating a near-universal consensus of public opinion, at least within Western Civilization, against discrimination. At the time the discrimination the liberals were concerned with was of the de jure type – laws and government policies which singled out specific groups and imposed hardships and disadvantages of various types upon them. It was not that difficult, therefore, for liberalism to create widespread public opinion against it. Since ancient times it has been understood that government or the state exists to serve the end of justice. In Modern times justice has come to be depicted in art as wearing a blindfold. This imagery is somewhat problematic – blindness to the facts of the case to be ruled on is not an attribute of justice but of its opposite – but is generally accepted as depicting true justice’s blindness to factors which should have no weight in ruling on a dispute between two parties or on the evidence in a case involving criminal charges against someone, factors such as wealth or social status. If this latter is indeed a quality of justice then for the state to discriminate against people on the basis of such factors is for it to pervert its own end and to commit injustice. This is what made the old liberalism’s campaign against discrimination so effective. What they were decrying was already perceivably unjust by existing and long-established standards.
Liberalism, however, was not content with winning over the public into supporting their opposition to laws and government policies that discriminated on such grounds as race and sex. Liberalism had set equality, which is something quite different from justice as that term was classically and traditionally understood, as its end and ideal and consequently with regards to discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, etc., they adopted a much more ambitious goal than just the elimination of existing unjust laws and policies, but rather set their sights on the elimination of discrimination based on such factors from all social interaction and economic transaction and as much as possible from private thought and speech. Indeed it was this goal rather than ending de jure discrimination that was clearly the objective of such legislation as the US Civil Rights Act (1964), the UK Race Relations Acts of 1965, 1968 and 1976 and the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977). Ironically, having so expanded their anti-discrimination project to target private thoughts and actions the liberals had to move away from their initial opposition to the injustice of state discrimination. The project of achieving equality by eliminating private discrimination required the cooperation of the state and laws and measures enacted by the state in pursuit of the ends of this project were themselves discriminatory albeit in a different way from the discriminatory laws to which the liberals had originally objected.
Today, decades later, the anti-discrimination project has become even further removed from the opposition to unjust laws that had won it broad public support. “Discrimination” has ceased to be defined by specific actions or even general attitudes that underlie actions and has become entirely subjective. Such-and-such groups are the officially designated victims of discrimination, and such-and-such groups are the officially designated perpetrators of discrimination, and discrimination is whatever the members of the former say they have experienced as discrimination. Loud and noisy theatrical displays of outrage cover up the fact that a moral campaign against “discrimination” of this sort lacks any solid foundation in ethics, logic, or even basic common sense.
Liberalism, or progressivism as it is now usually called having given up most if not all of what had led to its being dubbed liberalism in the first place and adopted a stringent illiberalism towards those who disagree with it, has clearly gone off the rails with regards to discrimination. If any discrimination deserves the sort of moral outrage that progressivism bestows upon what it calls discrimination today it is the sort of discrimination that the old liberalism opposed sixty to seventy years ago, discrimination on the part of the state. If we limit the word discrimination to this sense then Danielle Smith was quite right in saying that the unvaccinated have been the most discriminated against group in her lifetime.
In early 2020, you will recall, the World Health Organization sparked off a world-wide panic by declaring a pandemic. A coronavirus that had long afflicted the chiropteran population was now circulating among human beings and spreading rapidly. Although the bat flu resembled the sort of respiratory illnesses that we have put up with every winter from time immemorial in that most of the infected experienced mild symptoms, most of those who did experience the severe pneumonia it could produce recovered, and it posed a serious threat mostly to those who were very old and already very sick with other complicating conditions, our governments, media, and medical “experts” began talking like we were living out Stephen King’s The Stand. Our governments enacted draconian measures aimed at preventing the spread of the virus that were more unprecedented – and harmful – than the disease itself. They behaved as if they had no constitutional limits on their powers and we had no constitutionally protected basic rights and freedoms that they were forbidden to impinge upon no matter how good their intentions might be. They imposed a hellish social isolation upon everybody as they ordered us to stay home and to stay away from other people if we did have to venture out (to buy groceries, for example), ordered most businesses and all social institutions to close, denied us our freedom to worship God in our churches, synagogues, etc., demanded that we wear ugly diapers on our faces as a symbol of submission to Satan, and with a few intermissions here and there, kept this vile totalitarian tyranny up for almost two years. All of this accomplished tremendous harm rather than good. Towards the end of this period they shifted gears and decided to create a scapegoat upon which to shift the blame for the ongoing misery. It was not that their contemptible, misguided, and foolish policies were complete and utter failures, they maintained, it was all the fault of the people who objected to their basic rights and freedoms being trampled over. They were the problem. By not cooperating they prevented the government measures from working. Those who for one or another of a myriad of reasons did not want to be injected with an experimental drug that had been rushed to market in under a year, the manufacturers of which had been indemnified against liability for any injuries it might cause, the safety of which had been proclaimed by government fiat backed by efforts to suppress any conflicting information, or who did not want to be injected with a second or third dose after a previous bad experience, were made the chief scapegoats. These were demonized by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in terms and tone that call to mind those employed by Stalin against the kulaks and Hitler against the Jews. A system was developed, seemingly by people who regard the beast in the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse as an example and role model to be emulated, whereby society was re-opened to everyone else, but the unvaccinated were kept under the same brutal and oppressive restrictions as earlier in this epidemic of ultra-paranoid hypochondria. Indeed, some jurisdictions imposed new, harsher, restrictions on them.
So yes, Danielle Smith spoke the truth. Our governments’ attempt to shut the unvaccinated out of society as it re-opened from a forced closure that should never have occurred in the first place was indeed the worst case of discrimination by government to have occurred in Canada or the Western world for that matter in her lifetime. Her critics in the legacy media know this full well of course. Since they hate and are allergic to the truth, which they never report when a lie, a half-truth, a distortion, or some other form of mendacity will suffice, this is why they howled with rage and fury when Smith spoke it. Hopefully, she will give them plenty more to howl at. Posted by Gerry T. NealDanielle Smith, discrimination, Jason Kenney, Justin Trudeau, legacy media, Stephen King, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports
Hi everyone. Up until now, Sarah has diligently picked up the new editions of Druthers each month for people to distribute. CLEAR has been actively involved in distributing these weekly in Kelowna, with the assistance of wonderful volunteers.
Sarah needs someone to pick up the Druthers from the Diamond delivery depot at 2805 Acland Rd, Kelowna
Around the first week of each month.
We need someone to pick them up now, in November and drop them off at Sarah’s place.
Can you please help? Delivery of Druthers is critical to supporting freedom in British Columbia and provides Canadians with unprecedented information and articles that MSM simply won’t touch!
Please email us at: firstname.lastname@example.org if you can help pick them up. There will be about 200 bundles, with 100 to a bundle.
PM Trudeau – is under mind control
See his response to an unscripted question. At all times, watch his eyes – he is definitely under mind control; and listen to his answers – either someone is telling him what to say via an ear piece or some form of telepathy/mind control (see MK Ultra), or he is reading from a script somewhere to a question that was not expected and thus he did not have a prepared answer.
We need a truly independent inquiry – not some committee where the arbitrator is appointed and the terms and conditions set out by the Prime Dictator of Canada.
Here is the Petition:
Person – The most important term in our law!
Years in the making…
Next Webinar is on Nov. 17, 5:00 pm PST
Many myths and much disinformation have circulated for
years about our common law, our Constitution, our rights and freedoms, and other important topics.
This incredible Webinar series will finally provide irrefutable documentation confirming the true source of our property rights and the supremacy of God in our Constitution – and why we should be thankful they are NOT in the Charter!!
If you want answers to what your common law and Constitutional rights and freedoms are
Definitions and applications of the most important words in our law
Where your Constitutional right and power of civil disobedience to all unlawful statutes and orders originates
How Gov’ts and judges use “legal fictions” to steal your fundamental rights and freedoms from you
What limited rights, powers, and duties Gov’ts truly have
And much, much more…this is the Webinar series you have been waiting for!
We provide all sources of our research for verification purposes!!
By registering to this Webinar series, you will have
downloadable access to each presentation you have registered to watch!
All webinars have a password that is provided to you to access each show you wish to receive, or if you register for the series, all webinars.
Recently it has been announced that as of Oct. 6, merchants will be allowed to charge customers a fee for paying by credit cards.
The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash.
Withdraw money on Sunday from the bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.
NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
Each Sunday, for as long as we can, we are delivering Druthers/Pandemic Papers Publications, including CLEAR rally cards and other important inserts such as our Masks/PCR brochure, and the recently released UNITY Health & Sciences brochure, for door-to-door delivery to all the mail boxes in Kelowna
See these inserts below
Though labour intensive, the outings are enjoyable and productive
But we need YOUR help!
There is simply no other way we can reach so many people who have believed the Gov’t/MSM narrative/lies
Join us each Sunday by signing the CLEAR Newspaper Delivery Sign Up Sheet at the CLEAR table & providing your EMAIL address to Linda & Nikki.
We need about 8-10 people to deliver about 100 flyers each – only about 90 min.
Each Sunday we will meet at a specified location to be announced by email on Saturday night. Start times will be 11:30 a.m.
Many recipients continue to thank us for delivering these to their doorsteps!
Contact Unity Health & Sciences Team to volunteer to distribute their professional brochures and Medical Doctor Packages throughout your home area, and to your medical doctor!
Not every doctor, analyst, and specialist is on the gov’t side and many have strong science and personal experiences opposing the gov’t narrative.
From Vaccine Choice Canada
Please obtain a copy from Tom at Saturday’s Kelowna Rallies and pass along to informed and uninformed alike!
Even though COVID-19 restrictions are, for the most part, no longer in effect, other freedom issues have arisen as gov’ts use the cover of COVID-19 to introduce other more formidable liberty restrictions, including privacy violations.
Freedom is a multi-generational struggle – our legacy is to leave a better place for our children, not simply to quit after an issue appears to be over and anger diminishes; and of course, it rarely is truly over.
We urge you to provide designs (email@example.com) and/or your own signs for upcoming threats, including Digital ID
Digital currency and no cash
Climate change fraud
Cornell University Physician: I Was Wrong about COVID Vaccine Mandates
Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher and mathematician who taught at various institutions beginning with his alma mater, Trinity College at the University of Cambridge and ending with Harvard University at the other academic Cambridge, said a lot of things over his long career, most of them being forgettable, lamentable, or pure rot. He did, however, produce one gem when he characterized the entire Western philosophical tradition as being “a series of footnotes to Plato”. There would have been no Plato, however, had there not been a Socrates. It was Socrates, the legendary teacher of Plato and Xenophon as well as a number of individuals who are otherwise most famous for the various ways in which they disgraced themselves in the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath, who laid the foundation for Platonic and all subsequent Western philosophy. He did so by asking questions. To this day the didactic trick of getting someone to assert something and then picking away at it with questions is known as the Socratic Method.
The best account of that method remains that which Plato placed in the mouth of Socrates himself in his Apology. The title of this dialogue is the source of our English word apology although it had nothing to do with apologizing in the sense of saying that you are sorry for something. Apologetics, which in Christian theology is the art of making arguments for the faith against the objections of unbelievers (and originally against those in the state who thought the faith ought to be illegal), is much closer to the original meaning of the word which was “defence” and more specifically the legal defence of the accused at a trial. When Athenian democracy was restored after the short-lived rule of the hundred tyrants following the Spartan victory that brought the Peloponnesian War to an end, Socrates was charged with a number of offences such as corrupting the youth of Athens and put on trial before the Athenian assembly. Plato’s Apology purports to be an account of the speech Socrates gave in his defence on that occasion and indeed, the full title is Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους (“The Defence of Socrates”).
Early in the dialogue Socrates gives an account of how he came have the reputation that landed him on trial. He discusses Chaerophon, who had been a friend of his since his youth and who also, not incidentally, was a friend of the Athenian democrats, i.e., Socrates’ accusers, and one who had shared in their recent misfortunes. Chaerophon had gone to Delphi and asked the Pythian priestess of Apollo whether there was anyone σοφώτερος (wiser) than Socrates and had received the answer μηδένα σοφώτερον εἶναι (there is no one wiser). Socrates, when he had heard this, had thought to himself:
(“Whatever is the god saying and why ever does he speak in riddles? For truly I know myself to have wisdom neither great nor small and so whatever is he saying in asserting me to be the wisest? For surely he is not lying, at any rate, since that is not his custom.”)
This launched Socrates on his quest to find someone wiser than himself so as to rebut the oracle. He began by going to a politician with a reputation for wisdom. After having a dialogue with him he concluded:
(I am wiser than this man, for indeed it is likely that neither of the two of us knows even one good and beautiful thing, but whereas this man thinks that he knows something he does not know, I, on the other hand, as I do not know, neither do I think I know. I seem, at least then, in this little thing at any rate, to be wiser than him, that what things I do not know, neither do I think that I know.)
He repeated this procedure with others reputed to be wise with the same result every time. Later in the dialogue – apart from this it would more properly be called a monologue – he provides a demonstration when he cross-examines his accuser Meletus.
The Apology presents to us the two major failures of Socrates. The obvious one is his failure to persuade the assembly, which resulted in him losing his case, being convicted, and then largely because of his own flippant attitude when asked to propose an alternative sentence, condemned to death. The other is his failure in his self-appointed task of rebutting the oracle of Delphi. In failing to find someone wiser than himself and demonstrating that those reputed to be wise lacked both knowledge and an awareness of their own ignorance Socrates confirmed the oracle’s judgement – Socrates’ awareness of his own ignorance, a self-awareness that his interlocutors lacked, made him indeed, the wisest man of his day. This awareness of a lack of knowledge, willingness to acknowledge it openly, and to seek out knowledge by asking questions, became the starting point and foundation of the long philosophical tradition of Western Civilization.
Is it not then perverse that in academe, that is, the collective of institutions of higher learning which takes its name from the olive grove outside of the walls of Athens dedicated to that city’s patron goddess where Socrates’ greatest disciple Plato taught his own pupils, this spirit of acknowledging one’s ignorance, asking questions and being willing to learn is no longer welcome?
In the academe of today the idea is almost ubiquitous that the campus ought to be a “safe space” for groups which in progressive ideology deserve special rights and protections now because of past wrongs done to them, real and imagined. What this means in practice is that such groups are to be protected on campus from acts and, more importantly, words, that, in their opinion at least, are hostile or offensive to themselves. This translates into all criticism of these groups or even of individual members of these groups being forbidden because any such criticism could be and often is taken by these groups as being hostile or offensive. This in turn means that members of these groups cannot be questioned when sharing their “lived experience” (the progressive term for a member of a designated victim group talking about having experienced discrimination, marginalization, and whichever of the growing list of forbidden isms or phobias happens to apply) or “their truth” (when the word truth is modified by a possessive pronoun this is an progressive euphemism for claims made about one’s – usually sexual or gender – identity that are backed only by one’s experience and interpretation of such and not by conformity with objective reality), because such questioning is taken as criticism which is taken as hostility.
This is only one of many ways in which asking questions, at least if they are questions pertaining to progressive sacred cows, is discouraged, frowned upon, or outright forbidden on academic campuses.
Asking questions is fundamental not only to the philosophical tradition that began with Socrates and Plato but to something that if it were properly regarded would be considered but one branch of that tradition. That something is what we call science today. It would be better if we still called it natural philosophy. The term science is the Anglicized spelling of the Latin word for “knowledge” and its limitation, as in most contemporary English usage, to natural philosophy, its methodology, and its discoveries, has materialistic connotations. Science or natural philosophy, is that branch of knowledge-seeking that has as its subject matter the physical or natural world and how it works. It has greater utility than many other branches of philosophy which is why Modern man whose thinking is permeated by liberalism which places an exaggerated value on utility tends to think of science as something other than and superior to philosophy rather than one of its branches. It would have no utility whatsoever, however, were it not for asking questions and/or activities that are the equivalent of question asking. From Thales, Pythagoras and Aristotle in the Ancient world to Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Francis Crick, et al. in the Modern, none of these would have discovered anything had they not asked questions and especially questions about what was already being taught as science.
For the past three years we have had to listen to politicians, government bureaucrats, the majority of media commentators and even many clergy speak of “the science” as something to be “believed” and “followed”. Questioning “the science” was declared to be “misinformation” and “disinformation” and “conspiracy theory” by these same people and treated as such by the censorious tech companies who operate the major social media platforms. The vile and odious twit whom we have been saddled with as Prime Minister here in Canada since 2015, around the time of last year’s Dominion Election equated people who according to him “don’t believe in science” with “racists” and “misogynists” said that their views were “unacceptable” and that we ought to be asking ourselves whether we should continue to tolerate such people in our midst. All of this pertained to the “scientific” arguments that were being claimed in support of draconian government measures such as the enforced closing of schools, churches, businesses etc. that came to be known as “lockdowns”, mandatory masking, and ultimately compelled vaccination introduced in the panic over the bat flu. Anybody who has dared to question the doomsday predictions coming from Green activists masquerading as climatologists over the last three decades or so will have already been familiar with this sort of talk long before the pandemic. Regardless, however, of whether this talk about how we are under some sort of moral imperative to “believe” and “follow” “the science” and how those who do not are evil “deniers” comes up in the context of pandemic policy or climate policy it betrays the speaker as being thoroughly unscientific in the way he views science. Real scientists who make real discoveries that benefit mankind in real ways do not place a definite article before science and treat it as an object of unquestioning faith and obedience. Those who do speak about “the science” this way are speaking about something that is not really science. It is interesting, is it not, that what those who spoke this way in the pandemic and those who speak this way about “climate change” have in common, is that they all want more powers for the government, more limitations on personal rights and freedoms, and for the ordinary middle class people in Western countries to accept a severe reduction in their standard of living?
Asking questions is fundamental to yet another important discipline, that of history. Indeed, the very name of the discipline refers to the process of asking questions. Herodotus, who was about fourteen years older than Socrates, was born in Halicarnassus, a Greek city in Anatolia or Asia Minor, which at the time was part of the Persian Empire. A man of means, he travelled much throughout the Mediterranean world and about five years before he died, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and her allies and Sparta and her allies, wrote a ten book account of the peoples, customs, and past events of the region, concentrating on the Greco-Persian Wars fought in the first half of the fifth century BC, i.e., the century in which he lived. He introduced the first book and the entire work with the words “Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε” which mean simply “This is the publication of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus”. The word which means “inquiry” or “investigation” here is ἱστορίης which put in Latin characters is histories. It has ever since served not only as the title of Herodotus’ magnus opus but as the name of the entire field of looking into the events of the past to determine what happened and why of which Herodotus is quite properly remembered as the father.
The remainder of the opening sentence provides us with the subject and purpose of Herodotus’ investigation:
This means: “so that the things done by men do not become forgotten with time, nor the works both great and marvelous, some performed by Greeks others by foreigners, become inglorious, and with these other things also the reason for which they went to war with each other.”
To this day the historical discipline remains summed up well in this introduction. The methodology of historical inquiry is most comparable to that of the courtroom and this, of course, means asking plenty of questions of first hand witnesses to events if available and of others who have relevant knowledge. For Herodotus this meant asking the λόγιοι (learned men) of the various countries he visited for their accounts of their own customs, past events, and of various local natural, geographical, and architectural phenomenon. As an example, the very first thing that follows the opening sentence given above is his record of the account given by the Persian λόγιοι of that matter emphasized at the very end of his introduction, i.e., the cause of the Greco-Persian Wars. According to him the Persians traced the ultimate cause to the Phoenicians, who in the abduction of Io, princess of Argos, started a series of reciprocal abductions of women of rank (Europa, Medea, Helen) that culminated in the Greek onslaught of Troy, which event, judged to be gross overreaction by the Asians, was the immediate cause of the hatred and enmity of the Asians for the Greeks.
It has been suggested by subsequent historians, including his own contemporary Thucydides that Herodotus was less critical than he ought to have been towards his sources. Evidence, however, continues to accumulate to this very day that he was far more accurate than he has often been given credit for. For example, until very recently the prime example pointed to by his critics of his utterly credulity was his account in Book III of his History of a region in India where furry, fox-sized, ants, dig up gold dust which is then harvested by the locals, long ridiculed as outlandish and absurd. It was essentially confirmed by a French ethnologist four decades ago when he published his findings about a species of marmot (big squirrels who live in burrows rather than trees) in a particularly difficult to reach part of the Karakoram mountains on the side of the range belonging to Pakistan that does exactly what Herodotus said these “ants” do with the locals, the Minaro or Brokpas, continuing to harvest the gold. The Persians called these marmots “mountain ants”, presumably because of the similar habit of digging and making mounds, a rather more obvious basis of comparison that that which the person who gave the same species the alternative name “Tibetan snow pig” had in mind, although whatever that happened to have been was apparently also evident to whoever was the first to call the creature’s North American cousin the “groundhog”. The relevance of this to our point regarding history is simply this – it was by asking questions, first by those who questioned Herodotus’ account where it contained elements that seemed fanciful and for which they could find no other evidence and then by those who dug deeper, questioned the original questioners, and found evidence supporting his claims, that his work has been vindicated as being far more accurate than had been previously thought.
History then, like Socratic philosophy and empirical science – real empirical science, which never takes a definite article, is never settled, is not an object of faith to be believed or a leader to be followed – has truth as its end, and asking and seeking as its means and method. It is therefore rather disturbing or comical or both that our Parliamentarians seem to have adopted the attitude that historical truth is not something that is out there to be discovered by those who seek it but rather something to be declared and decided by their own authoritative fiat.
Earlier this year, in a shameless attempt to deflect public attention away from their own fascist behavior in declaring the equivalent of martial law in order to brutally crush a peaceful protest against their cruel vaccine mandates and other draconian health measures – this description has been borne out completely by the testimony in the inquiry over the last month or so – the evil Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet of knuckle-dragging, simian, louts and thugs declared their intention to make “Holocaust denial” into a crime in Canada. Since in the progressive lexicon asking a valid and important question about something progressives have declared to be a sacred cow constitutes “denial” this meant in effect that asking tough, challenging, questions about the Holocaust was to be criminalized. As a sleight of hand it was rather impressive. “Yes, I just suspended everyone’s civil rights and freedoms in order to crush people who were embarrassing me” the Prime Minister was essentially saying “but it’s these other people who are Hitler, not me, therefore I am going to make it so that they go to prison for saying things and asking questions that I don’t like, just like in Germany.”
More recently, the member of the official socialist party (the ones propping up the current government) who represents Winnipeg Centre in the House of Commons introduced a motion calling upon the government to recognize the Indian Residential Schools as a “genocide”. The motion passed unanimously. Now, a motion of this nature does not by itself actually do anything except send a message about who in the House has signed on to an asserted narrative. This is bad enough, however, because a) we elect Members to represent us in the House to look out for our interests on matters pertaining to the taxes we pay, the laws we live under, the wars, heaven forbid, that we fight, and the like and not to affirm or deny some narrative or another, b) the truth or falseness of such narratives is something that cannot possibly be affected by government pronouncements one way or another – to assert otherwise is to attribute to government a power closely akin to that which those who believe in magic spells attribute to spell-casting, to alter reality by uttering words – and c) the truth or falseness of these narratives is something that can only be discovered through open and honest inquiry and government proclamations of this nature, while they don’t actually forbid such, tend to discourage it. It is much worse that this motion passed unanimously, that not a single Member of Parliament could be found with the courage to challenge it. What makes this even worse is that the narrative in question is a claim which a) even apart from the evidence seems palpably absurd on the face of it, i.e., that the cooperative efforts of Canada’s government and churches to provide the education requested by the Indian bands and agreed to in the treaties, whatever might have gone wrong with them in practice, amounted to something that is categorically identical to or comparable with what the Hutus did to the Tutsis in 1994 Rwanda, b) has had its evidentiary basis crumble into nothing under scrutiny (see the essay “Kamloops Update: Still Not One Body” by Jacques Rouillard, Professor Emeritus in History at the Université de Montréal, in Dorchester Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring/Summer 2022, pp.27-36, and the article “Canada’s ‘Genocide’ – Case Closed?” by Michael Melanson and Nina Green posted on the same journal’s website on October 27, 2022), and c) has been heavy-handedly protected by those asserting it against the very sort of questioning which it would need to withstand to establish its truth-claims from the very beginning. The firing, last December, of Mount Royal University’s tenured Frances Widdowson for questioning woke ideology in general, and the Residential Schools narrative in particular, is but one example that could be given of the latter point. It is unlikely to have escaped your attention if you have remained with us this far that in each of these cases where a cold, hostile, forbidding attitude towards those who ask questions has taken over an intellectual institution or disciple that had been built upon a foundation of seeking and asking the culprit has been the same each time, at least in terms of it being the same way of thinking (or avoiding thought) although often the same individuals have been involved as well. Progressivism has never been as tolerant towards differing viewpoints as it professed to be under its liberal guise but what we are seeing in this latest incarnation of progressivism is the most illiberal face it has ever shown outside of regimes such as Cromwell’s, the French Reign of Terror, and the People’s Republics of Communism. The new progressivism is exemplified by our idiot Prime Minister who likes to sanctimoniously lecture people in the first person plural about the need to listen to others who disagree with us even though everyone who hears him knows that he ought to be using the second person because he has no intention of ever listening to anyone who disagrees with him and that what he really means is that everyone who disagrees with him needs to listen to what he has to say and change their views accordingly. This man frequently makes false affirmations of his belief in “free speech” and the need to defend such but never does so without including a qualifying provision that completely negates the affirmation and he has made it abundantly clear that he thinks the public need to be protected from speech that might “harm” which he calls by such terms as “hate”, “misinformation” and “disinformation” all of which merely mean speech that he disagrees with. His attitude towards questioning is what is most relevant, however, and it is quite instructive. Towards the end of the first term of his premiership, as his government was rocked by scandal, he bought off most of the private media companies in Canada with a $600 million bailout. To further ensure that he never faces questions tougher than what colour of socks he is wearing he has repeatedly sought to ban reporters representing the handful of independent media companies that had refused his money from his press conferences. Having gone to such lengths to ensure that he is only asked friendly questions, he never actually answers any of them, but instead only replies with pre-written remarks which may or may not have something to do with what he was asked. If the reporter recognizes that he has not gotten an answer and repeats the question, the Prime Minister merely repeats his initial response, usually almost verbatim as he lacks the intelligence required to reword it on the spot. The academic progressive thinks that members of designated victim groups should be protected from having “their truth” and their “lived experience” questioned, lockdown enthusiasts and Green activists think that “the science” should not be questioned but blindly believed and followed, and many, including members of our Parliament, think that certain historical assertions ought not to be questioned. In a Prime Minister who avoids questions that he has not approved in advance like the plague and who sidesteps answering those that are put to him these foes of what is most basic and foundational to any genuine intellectual pursuit have found their champion. Gerry T. Neal
Further confirmation the Liberals were never acting in good faith.
As we know, the Liberal government and much of the establishment media were desperate to cast the Freedom Convoy as “Canada’s January 6th.”
This stemmed in part from the fact that many in this country filter every event through the lens of the United States, and from the fact that the Liberal government clearly felt they could benefit from it politically.
Also, if Canadians perceived the Freedom Convoy as an ‘insurrection,’ the Liberals would be able to further expand government power.
We could seem the trying to will their fantasy into reality, with Trudeau using purposely divisive rhetoric and the Liberals almost goading convoy participants into more and more aggressive
When that didn’t work, the Liberals decided to use the Emergencies Act anyway, likely believing that using emergency powers would convince many Canadians that it must have been an emergency situation.
The Liberals would like you to think they were acting in good faith and only used the Act as the ‘last resort.’
But now, more evidence has emerged showing the Liberals were plotting to frame the convoy as ‘extremist’ before it even arrived in Ottawa: https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=SpencerFernando&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-px
In case you have trouble loading the Tweet above, a photo of the Trudeau PMO conversation is below:
This is quite demonstrative of the attitude of the Liberals.
Look at this line in particular:
“I think there could be an opportunity to get in on this growing narrative of the truckers.”
“Get in on.”
Even before anyone arrived, the Liberals were planning to demonize Convoy participants as extremists.
And the “LRB” referenced in the text refers to the Liberal Research Bureau:
“Power references the Liberal Research Bureau doing research into the convoy’s backers. This is the partisan operations wing under the auspices of the Liberal party, not the federal government.
The Liberals were never acting in good faith
Now, it’s not a surprise to us that the Liberals were never acting in good faith during the convoy.
And why would it be?
The policies that led to the Convoy itself were bad faith policies.
Remember, Justin Trudeau had at one point said Canada wouldn’t mandate vaccinations, and seemed to express concern about making vaccination status a wedge issue.
But then, the Liberals started to fear they were going to lose the 2021 federal election, and all of Trudeau’s ‘principles’ flew out the window.
He ran on a deeply divisive and cynical campaign of demonizing unvaccinated Canadians, and then imposed a vaccine mandate on truckers for what seemed like purely punitive reasons.
Having pushed so many Canadians into such a horrible situation, Trudeau and the Liberal government then demonized them and tried to provoke them.
This is what Canadians must understand:
The Freedom Convoy was a reaction to a government that had tried to rob people of their livelihoods and that had purposely sought to turn Canadians against each other. And instead of listening, instead of being open to the perspective of Canadians who disagreed with him, Trudeau instead tried to use the Convoy as a pretext for grabbing even more power.
Whatever our political views may be, we should have zero tolerance for our ‘leaders’ so willfully dividing Canadians in such a brazen and cynical manner.
Submission by the Canadian Association for Free Expression to the Public Order Emergency Commission, Inquiry into the Invocation of the Emergencies Act
The Act is only to be invoked when all other measures have failed or when there are no other means or powers to solve a very serious emergency. The three week Truckers Freedom Convoy protest may have been a nuisance, an embarrassment, and affront to the Government but it was scarcely a dire crisis. It was a political problem which should have been solved by political means. These were never tried.
1. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. (CAFE) is a non-profit educational organization incorporated under Letters Patent in Ontario in 1983. It’s brief is to promote the value of freedom of speech and to come to the support of those attacked for the non-violent expression of their political religious or artistic views. In pursuit of this goal CAFE has intervened in numerous legal and human rights cases over the years in Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick. http://cafe.nfshost.com
2. I wish to offer my observations on the freedom protests which led to the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy and which continue today in many cities across Canada, albeit with fewer numbers than before. This first hand and extensive experience may prove useful to the inquiry.
3. I am a veteran of close to 100 freedom protests in 18 different Canadian cities in two provinces from April, 2020 to the present. Those cities are: Ottawa (m), Toronto(m), Mississauga, Burlington (m), Hamilton (m), Brantford (m), Simcoe, London, Stratford, Niagara Falls (m), Niagara-on-the-Lake, Burlington (m), Kelowna (m), Penticton (m), Oliver, Osoyoos (m), and Vancouver. [(m) indicates many times.]
BACKGROUND TO THE END THE LOCKDOWN RALLIES & THE TRUCKERS’ FREEDOM CONVOY
4. The reactions of the federal, and the various provincial and territorial and municipal governments to the crisis caused by COVID (despite its 99.7% survival rate) resulted in the greatest restriction of the rights of Canadians at least since the Second World War.
5. At various times, gatherings were limited or restricted, businesses declared non-essential and ordered closed, persons forbidden to practise their faith by gathering to worship. For months, the Province of Quebec was placed under curfew.
6. People were compelled in many circumstances to wear masks. For months, people could not fly on Canadian airlines without showing proof of vaccination. A person’s right to determine what is introduced into his/her body (a vaccine) was negated. People were blackmailed into being vaccinated in order to keep or get a job. Thousands, including many medical people and civil servants were fired or put on unpaid leave of absence, if they wouldn’t take the vaccine or if they wouldn’t reveal their vaccination status [over 400 municipal workers in my home of Hamilton alone].
7. Pastors who felt a higher calling — to heed the Biblical injunction for the People of God to worship together communally — were, in some provinces, jailed or heavily fined. The Church of Aylmer Ontario Pastor Henry Hildebrandt was actually padlocked and chained closed by police.
8. Canadians who dissented from these measures as being wrong or an over-reaction to a virus were reviled in most the press and by most politicians as “conspiracy theorists” or selfish people who didn’t care if they killed grandma.
THE END THE LOCKDOWN PROTESTS & THE TRUCKERS’ FREEDOM CONVOY
9. Thus, starting in Vancouver in mid-March, 2020, spreading to Toronto the next weekend and then to cities and even towns across Canada was the largest mass protest in living memory. People frustrated by the various COVID restrictions and the deafness of most politicians gathered to stand up for their individual rights and freedoms. Theirs was very much a freedom protest.
10. At the July 1, 2020 Dominion Day rally on Parliament Hill, the sound of “”freedom, freedom” from a sea of Canadian flags and Red Ensigns was answered by “liberte, liberte” from a sea of Quebec blue fleur de lys flags and a few patriote flag from the rebellion of 1837. At a support rally at Queen’s Park in Toronto, the second Saturday of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy gathering in Ottawa, I met a man wearing a Polish flag as a cape. We got talking and he explained his presence succinctly: “As a youth in Poland I marched with Solidarity for freedom; today, in Canada, I march for freedom in my new homeland. Both countries are threatened by totalitarianism.”
11. These protests became weekly events in cities across Canada and in many places continue to this day. There has grown a dedicated freedom movement from coast to coast. The weekly nature of these rallies and their persistence for more than two and a half years is unprecedented. There is outrage and dedication fuelling the freedom movement, outrage at the casual ways politicians and even bureaucrats and businesses have stomped on individual rights, and disillusionment with most politicians who were mute or went along with these violations as did most of the media.
12. In the 18 cities where I have attended these freedom rallies, I have never witnessed violence. Indeed, the atmosphere, as it was for much of the truckers’ three week protest in Ottawa, more resembled a 1960s era “happening”. People at these rallies, almost to a man or woman, were unmasked. Social distancing, of course, was not practised. People hugged and embraced complete strangers. Mary Lou Gutscher, a former leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada, greets all who attend the Sunday rallies in Penticton with a hug.
13. People revelled in practising the freedoms that had been banned. In Toronto, for months a Chinese lady brought her home baking and generously shared with one and all. Small groups of various faiths prayed together with their co-religionists. There might be brief speeches and often music and dancing.
14. These rallies brought together people from various points on the political spectrum. I encountered people who had voted Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green and People’s Party in recent elections. What united people was a deeply felt sense of the loss of their freedom and frustration at a dismissive and unresponsive political class and a largely sneering media which, when it wasn’t ignoring these protests, demonized and dismissed participants as conspiracy theorists or anti-vaxxers. It was more complicated.
15. The disappointment and anger at the loss of freedom was what united people. Some, like followers of Pastor Henry Hildebrandt whom I met a Toronto rallies, were dismayed at the trampling of their right to practise their faith. Others opposed the forced closure of businesses. Some opposed all vaccinations on religious or medical grounds. More were skeptical of the vaccines introduced in late 2020 which had been developed, as President Trump said, “at warp speed”.
16. Many in 2020 worried about forced vaccination. Prime Minister Trudeau had said vaccination would be voluntary, but people noticed how policies changed from day to day. Early in 2020, Dr. Teresa Tam had said masks were of little use. My late Spring, masks were advisable and by Autumn, in many places, compulsory. Many at the rallies feared the same would be the case for COVID vaccines and, indeed, their fears came true.
17. Most people at the rallies were Old Stock Canadians or quebecois de souche in Quebec. Nevertheless, the rallies attracted a number of native Indians, people from Asia, Blacks and some Sikhs. (Many Sikhs are involved in small trucking firms.)
18. Many people at the rallies were furthered in their doubts about the various restrictive mandates by the unequal way in which they were applied. They noted that Prime Minister Trudeau had ignored social distancing and taken a knee at a large Black Lives Rally in Ottawa in June, 2020. Perhaps, the ever-present danger of COVID had taken a holiday that day so that the large gathering could occur. The then Toronto Chief of Police took a knee in a large crowd in the lobby of Toronto Police Headquarters. In June, 2020, a family of London Muslims was run over by a man in a truck. Various federal and provincial politicians, including Premier Ford and Prime Minister Trudeau, attended a large outdoor memorial, again in apparent defiance of mandates on the size of gatherings.
WHAT THE END THE LOCKDOWN FOLKS AND THE TRUCKERS’ FREEDOM CONVOY WANTED
19. When the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy began to take shape early in January, 2022, it was initially to oppose a new order to compel cross border truckers to be vaccinated. The convoy received enthusiastic support from dissenters across the country. It grew in size and its message was an end to all COVID mandates. At numerous rallies in January, I heard great enthusiasm for the convoy as the spearhead of the discontent with COVID restrictions.
20. People protest to get attention for their cause. There was a widespread disillusionment with being ignored by almost all politicians and most of the media when it wasn’t smearing the End the Lockdown and freedom rallies. It was hard to contact MPs. Few were available; many constituency offices were close. The universal excuse was COVID.
21. The goal of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy was to be heard. They wanted the politicians in Ottawa to pay attention to them and to listen to their concerns.
22. One criticism made as the truckers converged on Ottawa was that they wanted to overthrow and replace the Trudeau government. Allegedly, they hoped to get the Senate and protest representatives with the Governor General to depose Justin Trudeau and form a new government. This foolish plan was the brain child of a tiny faction. Few people at the support rallies I attended had even heard of it and no one agreed. It was obviously unconstitutional and wildly impractical. There was no evidence even one senator agreed. The Governor-General is a creature of Ottawa politics and the federal civil service. That she would so rock the boat as to be part of such a plan is preposterous. Virtually nothing more was heard of this after the truckers arrived in Ottawa.
23. Along the way, from coast to coast, people rallied to feed and cheer the convoy on its way. Mostly, it was bitter cold. The crowds were huge. In Hamilton, a welcome rally was planned for Thursday morning, January 27. It was brutally cold. I expected the organizers would be lucky to muster 200 people to greet the convoy coming up from Niagara. In fact, almost 2,000 people lined roads and snow banks cheering and singing and waving Canadian flags. Station wagons drove up and gave boxes of food and bottled water to the truckers. I followed the convoy along the Queen Elizabeth Way to Mississauga. On every overpass, there were between 30 and 300 people, sometimes even coming down the ramp to the highway, waving flags and cheering the convoy. They had waited for over an hour in what was a frigid wind tunnel. Others told me this was the pattern all to way to Ottawa. There was huge grassroots support for the convoy.
THE REACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
24. There has long been a rift in Canada between what is sometimes called the Laurentian Elite — the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto Axis and much of the rest of the country, especially small town-rural-small city Canada. Many in the latter group believe they are looked down on as unsophisticated, backward people who must be directed and led, for their own good, of course.
25. The demarcation lines are not perfect, of course. Many of the freedom protesters came from big cities, like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal.
26. Perhaps, a hint of the reaction of much of Canada’s political class occurred in the wake of the first End the Lockdown ally in Toronto in late March, 2020. Premier Doug Ford dismissed the protesters as “a bunch of yahoos.” He had headed the populist Ford Nation and ridden to victory in the 2018 provincial election on a wave of populism. Ford Nation was to die from the totalitarian restrictions and lockdowns imposed by the premier is response to COVID.
27. As the convoy gathered and headed toward Ottawa, the reactions of the government were hostile and abusive. This was not very astute nor fair, passing judgments on people the Prime Minister had never met. Surely, in Canada’s system of representative government an MP must listen to his/her constituents and attempt to represent their views as best as possible, but at the very least the MP should respectfully listen. The same obligation falls upon the First Minister, who spectacularly did not listen.
28. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who refused to meet the truckers, denounced them as a “fringe group”, with “unacceptable” views, who were “misogynistic” and racist and adherents of unscientific ideas. These accusations were made before the convoy even got to Ottawa. This was quite a blast at a group he hadn’t met! There was also much fretting about “violence”. There was much talk of bigotry and “hate”, although the issue of the truckers and their supporters was regaining freedom and an end to government mandates.
29. These accusations were false. As I have indicated, I noticed no violence or threats of violence at the close to 100 freedom rallies I’ve attended. Police testimony already before the Inquiry indicates there was remarkably little violence resulting from a three weeks protest by such a large crowd.
30. Representative government is imperilled when only certain views are deemed “acceptable” to even be heard. Similarly, whether an opinion is that of the majority or a minority (hence, perhaps, “fringe”) it should be heard. The government is loud in its loyalty to “diversity” and “inclusion”. [It even has a Ministry of Housing, Diversity and Inclusion.] One might hope that diversity and inclusion would apply to ideas as well.
32. The smear of “misogyny” was especially offensive and ludicrous. Women played a key role in the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy. One of the major organizers was Tamara Lich, who raised over $10-million in a Go Fund Me appeal within just a few weeks in January. It was subsequently stolen [that is, all but about $1-million, by a judge’s order did not go to the intended recipients, the truckers.] Women were often the majority at End the Lockdown rallies. Indeed, David Lindsay leader of the weekly C.L.E.A.R.-BC freedom protests in Kelowna said to me in the Fall of 2020: “Where are the guys? Seventy per cent of our supporters at these rallies are women.”
33. It would seem that the Prime Minister, much of the political class and many in the media sought to marginalize the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy with a torrent of baseless weaponized words.
34. The Prime Minister, instead of being open to hearing the convoy’s concerns, refused to meet with them and oozed a visceral disdain and contempt for them. In July, 2021, during the federal election the Prime Minister made a startling remark in French that was not reported in the English language press until January of 2022. The Toronto Sun (January 6, 2022) reported his comment: ““They are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists. It’s a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?”So, far from negotiation, the Prime Minister questioned whether COVID dissenters should even be tolerated. With such visceral rejection we may see why the Emergencies Act was invoked to smash the uprising of people he saw, in Hillary Clinton’s words, as “deplorables.”
35. Further to the Prime Minister’s mindset, in an article entitled “Convoy was no ‘occupation'”, Ottawa writer Rupa Subramanya says: “In the ultimate analysis, the narrative tone was set from the outset by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and it continues to this day. Commenting on the actions of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Trudeau praised Ford for ‘standing with the people of Ottawa, of Ontario and of Canada, and not others.’ Unless the prime minister believes, contrary to the evidence, that members of the Freedom Convoy came from Mars, or at any rate from outside Canada, he’s quite literally “othering” fellow Canadians. Trudeau is no longer even bothering with the pretence that he governs for all Canadians, and not just the minority (not even a plurality) who voted for him.” (National Post, October 29, 2022)
36. With the exception of a small number of Conservative MPs who met with and greeted the truckers, Ottawa’s political class was decidedly frosty and unwelcoming in its approach. Former Liberal Cabinet member Catherine McKenna called for censorship of the Internet: “Time for Canada to regulate social media companies so they stop promoting violence and hate.” (National Post, February 1, 2022) The then Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole flip flopped. At first, he refused to meet members of the convoy but eventually agreed to meet some truckers but away from Parliament Hill. Why, as if they were some disreputable people who could not be seen publicly in decent company? Still, he had to scold those he hadn’t even yet met: “There are other groups using the plight of truckers to bring division, hatred, and we need to call that out and stamp it out,” said O’Toole, with no specifics as to what hatred or who those groups were. (CBC January 27, 2022) NDP leader Jagmeet Singh leads a party that for generations has billed itself as the voice of the workingman. He, too, would not meet with these workingmen and women. Sounding a lot like Trudeau and O’Toole, he said that “some of the people behind the demonstration are pushing ‘false information’ through ‘inflammatory, divisive and hateful comments.'” (CBC, January 26, 2022)
NEGOTIATIONS: THE ROUTE NOT TAKEN
37. The main goal of the convoy and its supporters was to the heard by the politicians and especially by the government, to be treated respectfully and seriously. This would have been a reasonable political solution. The government might have invited the convoy to send a delegation of spokesmen to sit down with the Prime Minister and/or a team of Cabinet ministers to discuss their concerns with a view to ending the protests. This was never done.
38.The Inquiry has heard testimony from then-Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson that he had, in fact, negotiated with the Convoy leadership to begin moving their vehicles out of residential neighbourhoods and that the agreement held. “In a statement released on Sunday, the Freedom Convoy Board said it agreed with the mayor’s request to begin moving operations out of residential neighbourhoods.
‘We have made a plan to consolidate our protest efforts around Parliament Hill. We will be working hard over the next 24 hours to get buy in from the truckers. We hope to start repositioning our trucks on Monday,’ reads a letter from the board.” (Global News, February 15, 2022) The conclusion is clear: Negotiations — that is a political settlement — were indeed possible.
39. In early 2020, just before COVID hit, radical Indians and radical environmentalists occupied several railway lines. The most critical was the CN line across the top of Lake Ontario. The two week blockade cost over $300-million in losses for delayed deliveries. The government’s reaction to these manifestly illegal blockades was very different from its approach to the truckers. There were no angry denunciations. In the end, there were negotiations. Note the non-judgemental and conciliatory language used by Minister Marc Miller in regards to the blockades: “Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller says there is a clear ‘path forward’ to defuse the ongoing tensions caused by protests that have hamstrung the country’s transportation network, despite some Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs refusing to meet until the RCMP leave their territory.
‘I know that the recent events in B.C. and in various places across the country are deeply concerning to all Canadians. It is a very difficult situation for everyone — for those people who are non-Indigenous but especially if they are Indigenous,’ said Miller during an emergency debate in the House of Commons Tuesday night. ‘All of Canada is hurting, and we are all hoping and working for a peaceful resolution.'” (CBC, February 19, 2020)
40. Although the demands by the Indian and environmentalist blockaders might well be seen as extremist or fringe, there was no such denunciation in the minister’s language.
41. Similarly, while the Black Lives Matter protests in Canada during June and July, 2020, were mostly peaceful, their demand for defunding the police could be viewed as “fringe” or “extreme” but the Prime Minister was glad to greet BLM in Ottawa, meet with them and take a knee.
42. There was a political solution to the three week protest in Ottawa. An early meeting with the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy leaders might well have ended the protest after the first weekend. It is clear the truckers were amenable to negotiation and were reasonable. Their main goal was to feature their grievances in a mass protest (in that they succeeded) and to get the attention of the nation’s political leadership, especially the government. In that they got the equivalent of the bloody cavalry charge unleashed on peaceful protesters in 1905 in St. Petersburg by the Czar, at least as portrayed in the 1960s movie Dr. Zhivago.
The Prime Minister’s remarks, even before the convoy arrived dripped with hostility and contempt, as did much of the media coverage. This was politically clumsy at best.
The Emergencies Act is meant to be used as a last resort in a dire emergency In our submission, the peaceful Truckers’ Freedom Convoy may have been an annoyance and disruption but it was not a dire emergency. The federal government had not tried other means, especially political negotiations, to resolve the situation Instead, their response was to reach for the nuclear weapon of responses — the freedom stealing, money thieving Emergencies Act.
Prime Minister Trudeau has, on occasion, expressed admiration for the Communist Chinese system because, being a dictatorship, it can make decisions quickly and take action quickly, without the messy interference of Parliament or laws. That may be their system but it is not the Canadian way!
Rupa Subramanya: Ludicrous to call the Freedom Convoy an occupation
The protesters didn’t come from Mars, or from anywhere outside Canada Author of the article: Rupa Subramanya
(National Post, Oct 28, 2022)
As the second full week of hearings by the Public Order Emergency Commission winds down, it’s becoming increasingly clear just how weak the government’s rationale appears to be for invoking the Emergencies Act. As I wrote last week, key witnesses, including the OPP’s intelligence chief Supt. Pat Morris, shredded the federal narrative that the protesters were a violent and dangerous fringe who posed an imminent threat to the nation’s capital. Morris’s point of view was reconfirmed by OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique, who asserted categorically that there was no “credible threat” to national security posed by the Freedom Convoy.
Echoing the OPP, Ottawa Police Service incident commander Supt. Robert Bernier made clear that the Emergencies Act was not required for the police to do their job. Added to this, interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell said that while the emergency powers were “helpful,” they were not “needed” for the police, the OPP and the RCMP as part of their unified command to do their job.
The NP Comment newsletter from columnist Colby Cosh and NP Comment editors tackles the important topics with boldness, verve and wit. Get NP Platformed delivered to your inbox weekdays by 4 p.m. ET. Email Address By clicking on the sign up button you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You may unsubscribe any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our emails. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300
It’s obvious that emergency powers being helpful is not an adequate criterion to invoke them, and it’s going to be very hard for the government to make a convincing case that there was no viable alternative except imposing an emergency. Presumably, the last straw for the government to grasp at is that they had lost faith in the ability of the Ottawa Police, something suggested in a text message exchange now made public between Carrique and RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, who apparently relayed the government’s lack of faith to Carrique.
Leave the police aside — there’s ample reason to have little faith in Ottawa’s outgoing mayor, Jim Watson. One of his more outlandish suggestions after the protests had already been cleared was that protesters’ vehicles that had been seized be sold and the proceeds used for policing costs. City solicitor David White, in a memo that since been made public, shot down the idea, saying the city had no legal authority to permanently seize vehicles in such a manner. The fact that Watson, the mayor of a G7 capital, was apparently unaware of this and was proposing tactics that you would more usually find in a banana republic is flabbergasting and scary. Yet, this is of a piece with the federal government’s freezing of the bank accounts not just of the protesters but those who gave them a few dollars of support online.
Equally disturbing was some of Chief Bell’s verbiage during his testimony to the commission of inquiry. He repeatedly referred to the protests as an “occupation” and the protesters as “occupiers,” terms widely used by critics and opponents of the protests. Such terms are clearly intended to delegitimize what was in fact a peaceful disobedience movement, of a type that Canada or Ottawa has not seen much of, but which is common around the world, including in our neighbour to the south.
Likewise, when challenged under cross examination by Convoy lawyer Brendan Miller, Bell, who repeatedly invoked “violence” being done to city residents, conceded that his use of the term did not refer to actual violence as defined by the Criminal Code but a violence that was “felt” by Ottawa residents. Again, such an assertion might possibly make sense coming from a psychiatrist or a psychological counsellor, but seems rather bizarre coming from the chief of police, whose day job is enforcing the law, not psychologizing what some residents may or may not have felt.
If the rest of the hearings go like this, it’s hard to believe an impartial commission could conclude otherwise than the government failed to make its case for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. However, the Liberals have their waiting saviour in the NDP and Jagmeet Singh. Singh has said, while the inquiry is in progress, that even if the commission finds fault with the government, his party won’t pull the plug on Trudeau’s minority, thus propping them up until their term expires in 2025. Rationalize it however Singh may, this is nothing other than the most cynical political calculus, since an early election is likely to prove ruinous to the veto that a party unlikely to ever form a government has over the current governing party.
In the ultimate analysis, the narrative tone was set from the outset by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and it continues to this day. Commenting on the actions of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Trudeau praised Ford for “standing with the people of Ottawa, of Ontario and of Canada, and not others.” Unless the prime minister believes, contrary to the evidence, that members of the Freedom Convoy came from Mars, or at any rate from outside Canada, he’s quite literally “othering” fellow Canadians. Trudeau is no longer even bothering with the pretence that he governs for all Canadians, and not just the minority (not even a plurality) who voted for him.
Kelowna FREEDOM MEGA MARCH @ 12:15 p.m. followed by speakers
Anita Krishna Former news producer with Global News on COVID-19 corruption in the newsroom
Ted Kuntz Vaccine Choice Canada with recent updates
Nadia Podmoroff Freedom successes in the Kootenays
When the majority of society is in the grips of chronic mass hysteria, what can you do while you wait for them to wake up? Attempting to have logic-based conversations is usually an exercise in futility. The Plandemic has been a long-term investment for these people with no return on capital except for the mirage on the horizon that remains out of reach. Your logical information is a rude wake-up call that they don’t want to acknowledge.
So, the year 2020 tested the population with the mask. 2021 introduced the “cure” with the vax. Now it’s 2022 and we know we’re in for a “rinse and repeat” scenario. It’s old, it’s tedious and although we must keep standing in truth and freedom, we must also get on with our lives. There’s a great article in the June issue of Druthers titled “The Stay Sane Approach: Respecting People and Recognizing Paranoia.” Those who are awake need to simply continue living life in a “parallel reality.” We live (and by golly, we actually Thrive) WITHOUT masks and WITHOUT jabs. If you wear a mask, stop now. If you got a jab, don’t get any more. We were supposed to be dead from COVID-19 a long time ago. But here we are, still walking this earth. It’s hard to kill people who have functioning immune systems with a so-called virus that has a 99.74% survival rate.
But it’s not enough to just “exist.” We should be living life to the fullest and there is a world of possibilities out there for those who won’t settle for anything less. Those who have chosen to live in perpetual fear will get exhausted and they will eventually notice the greener grass on the other side. The world we live in now sucks and it’s falling apart – yeah! It’s extremely satisfying to watch the elite ding dongs of the world self-sabotage because they think they are more powerful than God. Lunacy is certifiable and we’ve got front-row seating to the propaganda clown show.
Check out the two Thrive documentaries to view our world “outside the box.” Thrive Okanagan was started as a movement to encourage people to live in a parallel reality that is not subject to the current corrupt establishments designed to enslave us. We are creating community where we value each other. By making connections and building a new network of like-minded people, we will have a solid foundation and support-system in place when the walls start crumbling down. Join us for our monthly potluck on Friday, July 15th and get on board with our new Thriving family. We’ve got your back!
Examine just some of the private and personal information that will be available should these become mandated into law.
If you have no privacy, you have no rights and freedoms.
New study links COVID vaccines to 25% increase in cardiac arrest for both males & females
June 1, 2022
Trudeau Panics as his Government reveals the Fully Vaccinated account for 4 in every 5 COVID Deaths in Canada since February
Whilst you were distracted by Boris resigning, the UK Gov. quietly published a report confirming the Vaccinated account for 94% of all COVID-19 Deaths since April, 90% of which were Triple/Quadruple Jabbed
“It ain’t over till it’s over”
CLEAR MEGA RALLY!
July 16, 2022
+30° – Sunny(subject to change without notice!!! lol)
+ The CLEAR Information Table
Because It Ain’t Over!
July 16, 2022 12:00 noon
Vernon Freedom Rally
12:00 Noon Polson Park
Join Darren for the Largest rally in the North Okanagan, and growing weekly!
Conservative leadership candidate Roman Baber and PPC leader Maxime Bernier have confirmed that they will be joining Canadian Armed Forces veteran James Topp on his nationwide march to Ottawa in protest of Covid-19 mandates.
Baber tweeted on Monday that he would be meeting Topp on Jun. 15 before he reaches the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
On Tuesday, Bernier also said that he would be meeting Topp and walking with him on Jun. 30 for the last leg of his journey to Ottawa.
Topp’s 4,293 km march began at the tail end of February in Vancouver around the time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to quash peaceful Freedom Convoy protestors in Ottawa.
“Everywhere I meet people, I hear their stories and the stories are amounting to an overwhelming amount of individuals suffering due to government overreach,” Topp told True North in March. “I am marching to carry these stories to Ottawa. I want to thank every person who has entrusted me with their story. It increases my resolve more and more each day.”
Legacy media outlets have refused to cover Topp’s historic journey and the CAF veteran has called the blackout a sign of how divisive the industry has become.
“What we’re finding is pretty much a total corporate media blackout on this endeavour,” he said. “To that end, I would say, you know, folks who want to go out there and start banging the drum and shaming the CBC or CTV, because this is an amazing story of – 100 days in – a group of people who had never met each other before February 20.”
Before beginning the march, Topp was a civilian RCMP employee and a CAF member who lost both jobs because of the federal vaccine mandate.
Topp has stated that he has spoken to at least 10 MPs from different parties and he hopes to secure a venue to hold a discussion about ending restrictions. Topp’s three priorities are repealing, reinstatement and restitution plus repair.
Jody Thomas, the Prime Minister’s Security and Intelligence Advisor, declared on March 10 that “there’s no doubt” that the people who organized the peaceful protest in Ottawa in February “came to overthrow the government.” Oddly, Ms. Thomas then goes on to express grave doubt about whether the protesters had the ability to do this, or even knew how to do it. Indeed, the truckers brought neither guns nor tanks, did not storm the Parliament buildings, and made no effort to occupy even one government building. Some individuals called on the prime minister to resign, but nobody used force to try to make that happen.
Ms. Thomas credits the Emergencies Act with empowering the federal government to freeze bank accounts without a court order or oversight, and to have police horses trample unarmed protesters, “in a way that we would have not otherwise been able to do.” It appears that, for Ms. Thomas, no measures can be too harsh when suppressing what she describes as “domestic ideologically motivated violent extremism.
“Ms. Thomas refers to the February protest as the “occupation” of downtown Ottawa, although Members of Parliament (and many others) have stated publicly that they had no trouble walking through the city centre each day to get to their place of work. Article 42 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” When the Romans occupied Britain, they were effectively in charge of Britain, to the exclusion of another empire or a local sovereign. When the Germans occupied the Netherlands and other countries during the Second World War, the Germans ruled. A large gathering of people in one area does not constitute an “occupation.
“Ms. Thomas also referred to the peaceful protest as a “blockade,” when in fact the downtown was not in any way sealed off to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving. It was the police, not the protesters, who eventually erected a fence around the downtown core, after the Prime Minister had declared a national emergency. Certainly, some Ottawa residents were inconvenienced by the protests, but this does not turn the protest into a “blockade.”
If the protesters had been violent or had committed crimes, the Ottawa Police would have arrested those people, and publicized the arrests. To support the government’s narrative that the truckers were dangerous, racist, violent, criminal extremists, the police would have informed the public about specific crimes, detailing what happened, the names of persons charged, and which Criminal Code sections they had been charged with violating.
Yet during the first three weeks of the Ottawa protest, prior to the February 14 declaration of a national emergency, police did not charge any trucker with any crime. Some of the truckers’ leaders were in daily communication with police. Police even told the truckers where to park their trucks.
Moreover, if any protester had vandalized, stolen, or burned down property, or had assaulted anyone, or had uttered criminal threats, the CBC and other government-funded media would have gleefully reported on it repeatedly, around the clock, for weeks on end. Why were government-funded media not able to show Canadians footage of protesters committing crimes? Perhaps because the truckers were not engaging in illegal behaviour?
The accusations of Ms. Thomas about an “occupation” and “blockade” with intent to “overthrow” Canada’s government are as irresponsible and unfounded as the Prime Minister’s narrative about unvaccinated Canadians being “anti-science, racist, misogynist, extremists.”
There is a dark and very sinister side to accusing peaceful protestors who disagree with certain government policies of wanting to overthrow the government. It’s a move that comes straight out of the tyrant’s playbook.
A Cambodian court recently convicted 19 political opposition leaders of trying to overthrow the government, a verdict described by Human Rights Watch as bogus. The prosecution accused members of an opposition party of conspiring to topple the current government, run by former Khmer Rouge commander Hun Sen. Political opponents were also accused of undermining the current regime’s credibility by disseminating untrue and inflammatory information.
When Nicaraguan security forces violently put down anti-government protests in 2018, President Daniel Ortega claimed the protests were actually an attempted coup with foreign backing, and that foreign-funded organizations were part of a broader conspiracy to remove him from office. Nicaraguan authorities continue to prosecute and jail President Ortega’s opponents on charges of “conspiracy to undermine national integrity.” It is interesting that Ms. Thomas accuses truckers of wanting to overthrow the Canadian government and asserts that foreigners provided funding to the truckers.
Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, whose regime murdered an estimated 300,000 Ugandans during his eight-year reign of terror, was very offended when Archbishop Janani Luwum publicly criticized the government’s violence. Well, you guessed it: Idi Amin accused this archbishop of seeking to overthrow the government. Archbishop Luwum was arrested in February 1977 and died shortly after. Although the official account describes a car crash, it is generally accepted that he was murdered on the orders of Idi Amin.
Thus far, opponents of Prime Minister Trudeau have not been murdered and have not been jailed for long periods of time. But demonizing the unvaccinated minority, accusing opponents of wanting to overthrow the government, freezing bank accounts without a court order, and commencing criminal prosecutions against peaceful protesters are clear and direct threats to the survival of Canada as a free and democratic society.