COVID-19
‘River of Freedom’ documentary exposes the brutal COVID tyranny of New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
What emerges from the film is a political class without conscience. It turns out the Ardern government’s COVID advisory group knew early on about the vaccine side effects and advised the cabinet against the mandates. But the government went ahead anyway.
The documentary River of Freedom is a filmic record of the protests in New Zealand against the COVID lockdown policies and the mandating of vaccines. It has made its mark locally. Despite being ignored by the mainstream media, and only playing on a few screens, it reached number 10 in the box office.
The film documents the objections against then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s mandatory “No Jab, No Job” vaccination regime. It shows how the New Zealand politicians, when confronted by the protestors, hid in the building; all 120 parliamentarians refused to communicate with them. Two ex-members of parliament did visit and were later served with trespass notices.
The protestors seemed neither organized nor threatening; most of them talked repeatedly about the need to love one other. The mood was rather one of confusion and trauma as people who had mostly trusted their government saw their politicians turn into bureaucratic tyrants.
Many of them had lost their jobs and suffered the accompanying distress. There were photos of the vaccinated, often young, who had either died or been seriously injured. There was an especially sad story from a woman who had to undergo four rounds of chemotherapy after getting jabbed because of the extreme inflammation.
It is another chapter in the bleak history of what will come to be seen as the greatest medical crime in history. Yet strangely it is clear that both sides thought they were in the right.
The film starts with a truck convoy similar to the famous Canadian event. They arrived in the capital city Wellington as a diverse group, coming from many different walks of life. Their claims were simple. People should have the right to make choices about what goes into their body and should not be forced by the state. They should have the right to air their views and be involved in public discussion without being censored, demonized, abused, and ignored, including by the mainstream press.
This would once have been a statement of the extremely obvious. As one unjabbed policeman, who lost his job, pointed out, whenever he detained someone, he was required to inform them of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Yet those rights were completely ignored by the NZ government.
The politicians, meanwhile, displayed a smug certainty that only managerialist functionaries can achieve. They had their deliverables (get everyone vaccinated) and, my goodness, they were going to deliver them. It is another demonstration that imposing a management discipline inevitably impedes peoples’ conscience, the ability to reflect on one’s own actions.
Manipulative techniques, especially spin, were on full display. There was absurd marketing messaging to persuade the citizenry to, in effect, take a risk with their health. There were extreme efforts to depict the protestors as extremists. Ardern ridiculously described them as “pure evil,” adding that the vaxxed had every right to see the unvaxxed as a threat.
In parliament Michael Wood, the minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said, after pretending to have some understanding of the protestors’ fears, that underneath it all was “a river of filth, a river of violence and menace, a river of anti-semitism, and … a river of Islamophobia”. What the latter two claims were about is anyone’s guess. Oh, and I nearly forgot. There was also a “river of genuine fascism”.
The legal sophistry was provided by the Attorney General David Parker, who burbled on about “collective rights” versus individual rights. He opined that in communist and fascist countries collective rights are taken too far – a better description would be that rights are largely removed from people – and then warned against “an extreme version of individual liberties trumping community rights”.
Apart from slipping between “rights” and “liberties,” which have different definitions, it is hard to see how what the protestors wanted was in any way “extreme.” It is indisputable that freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to be free from discrimination, and the right to work are foundational in New Zealand. Yet free speech was attacked as “spreading disinformation,” discrimination against the unvaccinated was vicious, and the right to work was removed for anyone who did not comply.
The right to freedom of religion was also compromised. An unjabbed Catholic man said he was locked out of his church, and a Hare Krishna practitioner said could not go to his temple.
The film shows the protestors engaging in many “extreme” activities such as singing songs, having sausage sizzles, and talking about love a lot. When the politicians refused to meet them – with the exception of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters – they doubled down by having more sausage sizzles, singing more songs, and passionately speaking of the need for people to treat each other well.
Enraged, the politicians unleashed the police who looked very much like the “river of violence and menace” that Wood mentioned. Except it was the state sending it, not the protestors. Even then, the reaction was mostly peaceful despite a number of the protestors being hurt.
New Zealand did not experience the highly suspicious involvement of its military, as occurred in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. And the country turned out to have a functioning judiciary, which definitely was not the case in Australia, where judges discovered new meanings for the word “cowardice” (they were exempted from the jab).
Some sacked New Zealand police and defence force personnel challenged the vaccine mandate in the High Court and won. It is the point at which the documentary ends.
The Covid disaster showed that, when put under pressure, most Western countries do not have an effective judicial branch of government, an independent rule of law. So New Zealand’s High Court victory was not trivial. At least some of country’s institutions were willing to protect democracy.
What emerges from the film is a political class without conscience. It turns out the government’s COVID advisory group knew early on about the vaccine side effects and advised the cabinet against the mandates. But the government went ahead anyway.
Why? Managers are required to produce measurable outcomes, and the outcome was to get everyone jabbed. Anything else, such as listening to peoples’ objections, considering possible risks, abiding by the principles of democracy, or even remembering what it is to be human, were ignored. That icy callousness of the politicians makes quite a contrast with the heartfelt outbursts of the protestors.
COVID-19
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
From LifeSiteNews
By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net
Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.
Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.
Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”
The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.
On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”
Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.
The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”
The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
From LifeSiteNews
Speaking as an invited guest, Tamara Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022 calling for an end to COVID mandates that authorities treated the protesters like a ‘drug cartel.’
Tamara Lich, leader of Canada’s 2022 Freedom Convoy, was invited to speak before the European Parliament and wasted no time blasting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for “hiding” from protesters instead of engaging in dialogue as he did with other activist groups.
“We have politicians calling us terrorists, domestic terrorists, racists, even accusing us of trying to burn down an apartment building,” she said during her address.
“This is not the Canada I grew up in.”
Lich was a guest at the EU Parliament by the Europe of Sovereign Nations group, which is a right-of-center faction. She was joined alongside MEP Christine Anderson to speak to the parliament located in Strasbourg, France.
Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests, which took place in January and February 2022 in Ottawa calling for an end to COVID mandates, authorities treated the protesters like a “drug cartel.”
“Our prime minister ran away and hid and refused to even send anyone out to talk to us. … As a matter of fact, he even said that he’s attended protests before but only those that he supports,” she said.
“In my opinion, the leader of a country leads all of their people, not just the ones who believe in the same ideology. That is his job, and he failed us. They all failed us.”
Lich in a later social media post to X noted how it was a “privilege and an honour to speak to the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group this evening about the treatment of hard-working, blue-collar Canadians and the brave truckers who stood up for all of us.”
“I was able to speak about the current political climate in Canada, the censorship of our media, lawfare and political prisoners (our beloved Coutts boys) and the freezing of bank accounts without Parliamentary oversight or court order from a judge among many other concerning and important issues we are facing as Canadians under this current regime,” Lich said. “Thank you to Madam Christine Anderson and the ESN Group for this amazing opportunity. I will never forget it.”
The Europe of Sovereign Nations thanked Lich for her testimony, saying in a social media post its group was out in “full force on the sidelines of the plenary session in #Strasbourg to hear Tamara Lich’s testimony regarding the #Canadian government’s handling of Covid, which showed no regard for individual freedoms.”
Lich still faces up to 10 years in jail for protesting government COVID mandates
Lich and co-leader Chris Barber’s trial concluded in September, more than a year after it began. It was originally scheduled to last 16 days.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich and Barber’s verdict will be announced on March 12.
Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence. LifeSiteNews reported extensively on their trial.
During Lich’s speech, Lich noted how she was thankful for “support” Canadians showed to the Freedom Convoy “in the form of donations which were that we were going to receive.”
“We honestly thought we would just drive there, you know a small group of us,” she said. “But what we saw, as you guys obviously did too, on the sides of the roads and on the overpasses, was an overwhelming number of Canadians out there to support us who finally felt hope for the first time in years. Who finally felt proud to be Canadian for the first time in years.”
The $24 million raised by GoFundMe was frozen on the orders of the government.
“The first GoFundMe campaign that we started was taking in $1 million a day as we travelled across the country. (It) was frozen after the politicians contacted GoFundMe and told them that we were ‘domestic terrorists’ and that they were ‘fighting terrorism,’” Lich said.
She recounted how the problems facing Canada under the Trudeau government are not just an issue at home but around the world.
“This is what they are trying to do,” said Lich, adding, “I see it everywhere, it’s to demoralize and bankrupt you, but I’m here to tell you that they picked on the wrong woman, and we’ll keep fighting.”
In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.
The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.
-
Internet1 day ago
Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
-
Opinion1 day ago
The idea of ‘democracy’ championed by globalist elites is far from what the people think
-
Business1 day ago
Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets
-
armed forces8 hours ago
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
-
Business1 day ago
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
-
Bruce Dowbiggin14 hours ago
How The NFL Grinch Bought Xmas: Drowning In A Sea of Football
-
Business14 hours ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List
-
Health12 hours ago
Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism