Freedom Convoy Fallout: Protester’s frozen accounts case highlights Emergencies Act backlash

Freedom Convoy Fallout: Protester’s frozen accounts case highlights Emergencies Act backlash

07/09/2025 // Willow Tohi // 1.3K Views

T

  • Ontario judge orders RCMP and TD Bank to release records tied to freezing Freedom Convoy protester Evan Blackman’s bank accounts.
  • Government’s use of the 2022 Emergencies Act faces scrutiny over civil liberties violations, including bank seizures and coerced tow truck conscription.
  • In 2023, Blackman was acquitted of mischief and obstruction charges, but Ottawa appealed, leading to an upcoming retrial in August 2025.
  • 2024 court ruling found Trudeau’s invocation of the emergencies law “not justified,” highlighting overreach in targeting peaceful protesters.
  • Legal backers seek to link bank seizures to constitutional violations, framing the case as a landmark challenge to state powers.

A Canadian court has ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and TD Bank to release records related to the freezing of a protester’s bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy, reigniting debates over government overreach and civil liberties under the controversial Emergencies Act. The ruling, issued July 4 by the Ontario Court of Justice, sets the stage for a pivotal legal battle as courts reconsider the legitimacy of then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of emergency powers to quell protests against pandemic and vaccine mandates.

Evan Blackman, one of hundreds whose accounts were frozen under the law, faces a retrial in August 2025 after being acquitted in 2023 of charges related to the Ottawa demonstrations. His lawyers argue that the seizure of his funds — a decision first reviewed as lawful but later condemned by federal judges — violates Charter rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The court’s demand for transparency could unravel the government’s case while exposing systemic flaws in its pandemic-era policies.

The legal fight over “extreme overreach”

The ruling demands disclosure of documents detailing how and why Blackman’s accounts were frozen under Section 53 of the Emergencies Act, which Trudeau invoked on February 14, 2022. The law, originally designed for responses to disasters like floods or terrorist threats, granted unprecedented power to block financial transactions, seize property and militarize law enforcement.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury, representing Blackman’s Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), called the seizure “an extreme overreach,” stressing that the records could prove the government “illegally punished peaceful dissent.” Blackman, an Ottawa-area protester detained after participating in nonviolent rallies, saw his three accounts frozen for over a week, potentially stifling his ability to prepare a defense during the original charges.

The JCCF emphasizes that this is the first criminal case in Canada attempting to halt proceedings under Section 8 of the Charter, which bars unreasonable searches or seizures, and Section 2(b), protecting free expression. Their stance draws strength from a 2024 Federal Court ruling by Justice Richard Mosley, who declared Trudeau’s emergency declaration “not justified,” arguing it failed to balance public interest with human rights.

The 2022 protests and their aftermath

The Freedom Convoy began on January 15, 2022, as a movement protesting vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions. By early February, it swelled into hundreds of tractor-trailers blocking Ottawa’s streets, leading Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act—a move nearly all provinces condemned.

Documents now sought by the JCCF could clarify how authorities targeted nonviolent advocates. While the government framed protests as violent, much of the event unfolded as group camping, community meals and music, according to RCMP logs obtained by the National Post. Instead, most documented violence stemmed from state actions: videos showed mounted police trampling an elderly woman and attacking journalists.

Critics argue the law’s use set a dangerous precedent. Despite a special commission later endorsing Trudeau’s emergency declaration, federal courts — including Mosley’s decision — have since eroded its legitimacy.

What lies ahead: A trial with national implications?

Blackman’s retrial in August could become a landmark test of Canada’s emergency laws. His legal team plans to argue that the federal government’s seizure of funds was retaliation for political speech, violating the Charter. If successful, similar cases by over 100 protest-era plaintiffs might proceed, reshaping how authorities handle dissent.

Meanwhile, the RCMP and TD Bank have yet to publicly comment, though the ruling binds them to comply. The outcome may also influence current debates over pandemic-era policies, as critics question the viability of invoking “extreme measures” for non-violent public assemblies.

As Fleury noted, the case “exposes a dangerous precedent where the state weaponizes financial control to silence dissidents.” For civil liberties advocates, the ruling offers a rare chance to challenge a legacy of distrust in Trudeau’s leadership — and redefine the limits of crises authority.

A new day for accountability, or an open door for state power?

The Ontario court’s demand for transparency in Blackman’s case underscores a growing reckoning with the 2022 pandemic policies. While the protests seemed forgotten to some, the legal fallout continues to reveal a government unprepared to balance safety with constitutionality — and a judiciary increasingly willing to hold it to account.

As the Aug. 14 retrial nears, Canadians wait to learn more than Blackman’s fate: whether their next crisis will be met with calm stewardship… or another round of rushed, rights-eroding reforms.

Sources for this article include:

“My Body, My Choice”? http://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=6683

THRONE, ALTAR, LIBERTY

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2021

“My Body, My Choice”?

The slogan “my body, my choice” is not a new one.   It has been around for years and, until practically yesterday, everyone who heard it – or read it on a placard – knew who the person saying it –or holding the placard – was and what this person was talking about.    That person was someone who identified as “pro-choice”, the choice in question being the choice of a woman to have an abortion.

Those of us who were on the right side of the abortion debate, the side that generally went by the label “pro-life”, would answer this slogan by pointing out that it was not just the woman’s body that would be affected by the abortion.    The unborn baby inside her would also be affected.    Indeed, its life would be terminated as that is the essential nature of an abortion.    The pro-choice movement has gone to great lengths to disguise the true nature of abortion from itself, and from those women contemplating one.    They use euphemistic language like “reproductive rights”, “reproductive health”, and the like in order to depict abortion as being merely a routine medical procedure.    They object strenuously to efforts by the pro-life movement to shatter this façade and bring the true nature of abortion out into the open by, for example, showing graphic depictions of aborted babies.

It can no longer be assumed, when one hears the slogan “my body, my choice”, that the person speaking is talking about abortion.   Indeed, it is probably safe to say that if you hear that slogan today, the chances are that the person saying it is not talking about abortion at all.    This is because in the last couple of months or so the slogan has been adopted by a different group of people altogether, those who are on the right side of the forced vaccine debate and are bravely standing up to the mob which, scared senseless by two years of media fear porn about the bat flu virus, is supporting governments in their efforts to shove needles into everyone’s arms whether they want them or not.

The mob’s answer to this new use of the slogan, when they bother to respond with anything other than “shut up and do what you are told” is similar to the pro-life movement’s answer to the pro-abortion use of the slogan.   It is not just our bodies, they tell us.   It is our duty to do our part to take the jab in order to protect others from the bat flu and if we don’t do our part the government should force us to do so by making our lives as miserable as possible until we do.

Before showing how and why the pro-life movement was right in its answer to the slogan as used by the pro-abortion movement while the supporters of forced vaccination are wrong in their answer to the slogan, it might be interesting to observe another way in which these two seemingly disparate issues intersect.    Among those of us who are on the side of the angels against forced vaccination there are those who are merely against vaccines being coerced and there are those who have objections to the vaccines qua vaccines.   Those who object to the vaccines qua vaccines could be further divided into those who are against all vaccines on principle and those who have problems with the bat flu vaccines specifically.    The latter include a large number of traditionalist Roman Catholics and Orthodox, evangelical Protestants, and other religious conservatives.    One of the reasons more religious conservatives have objected to the bat flu vaccines is that the mRNA type vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) are developed from research that used a cell line originally derived from an aborted foetus and the Johnson & Johnson viral vector vaccine used a cell line from a different aborted foetus in its production and manufacturing stage.

Now, let us consider some differences between these scenarios that render the pro-life movement’s response to “my body, my choice” valid, and the pro-forced vaccination mob’s response to the same invalid.

The pro-life movement objects that “my body, my choice” is not a valid defense of abortion because abortion causes the death of someone other than the woman choosing to have an abortion.    This is a strong argument because a) abortion always, in every instance, and indeed, by definition, causes such a death, b) the death is always of a specific someone who is known, to the extent an unnamed person can be known, and c) the death is always intentional on the part of the persons performing and having the abortion.   The opposite of all of this is true in the case of someone who rejects the bat flu vaccines.    Someone not getting a vaccine is never the direct cause of another person’s death.    An unvaccinated person can only transmit the virus to someone else if he himself has the virus.   Even if he does have the virus and does transmit it to someone else that other person is far more likely to survive the virus than to die from it.   This is true even if the other person is in the most-at-risk category.   It would be extremely rare, if it happens at all, that causing another person, let alone a specific other person, to die would be part of the intent in deciding not to be vaccinated.    Therefore, the argument that the pro-life movement uses against “my body, my choice” in the case of abortion, does not hold up as an argument against the same in the case of forced vaccination.

A second important difference is in how the expression “my body, my choice” is used by the two groups.   The pro-choice movement uses it against those who would prohibit women from having an abortion.   The opponents of forced vaccination use it against those who would compel everybody to take an injection.   To compel somebody to do something requires a much stronger justification than to prohibit them from doing something.    This is especially the case when it comes to medical procedures.   A reasonable justification for denying someone a medical procedure that is not urgently needed to save the person’s life from immediate danger is far more conceivable than such a justification for compelling someone to undergo a medical procedure.    In the case of the bat flu vaccines, the clinical trials of which will not be completed for another two years, many of which include mRNA which has never been used in vaccines before, which increase the risk of the heart conditions pericarditis and myocarditis, as well as thrombosis (blood clots) and Bell’s palsy, and which is for a respiratory disease that people who are young and healthy have well over a 99% chance of surviving and even those who are not young and healthy are far more likely to survive than not, the idea that compelling anyone to take these could ever be rationally justified is morally repugnant.

So we see that “my body, my choice” is weak and invalid with regards to abortion but is strong and valid with regards to forced vaccination (vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, etc.)    The only reason there is a mob supporting and calling for the latter today, is because people and businesses have been terrorized by the media and their governments and subjected to hellish lockdowns and restrictions for almost two years, are sick of it, would agree to almost anything to be rid of it, and so they jumped aboard the forced vaccination bandwagon when the public health mandarins said that we need vaccine mandates and vaccine passports to avoid another lockdown.   The public health mandarins are lying, however, as they have been lying since day one of the bat flu pandemic.  All that is needed for us to avoid another lockdown is for governments to start respecting our constitutional rights and freedoms and the constitutional limits on their own power.     They will only do this if we insist upon it.   Letting them get away with forced vaccination is not a step towards the return of freedom, but towards greater tyranny. — GERRY T. 19FREEDOMMRNATYRANNYVACCINES