Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Mark Carney was an early supporter of government crackdown against Freedom Convoy

Published

4 weeks ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

It is difficult not to conclude that he was publicly building the case for what Trudeau would ultimately do: freeze bank accounts, invoke the Emergencies Act, and launch a crackdown. Ironically, a federal justice would conclude, based on a mountain of evidence, that the government crackdown Carney appeared to be advocating did precisely what he accused the convoy protesters of doing: violating the fundamental rights of Canadians.

The Freedom Convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 29, 2022. Two weeks later, on February 14, Justin Trudeau declared the Emergencies Act (which replaced the War Measures Act in 1988); his Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, insisted that law enforcement had requested the measure. Police from all over the country began arriving in Ottawa, and on February 18, they were sent to clear the streets — including a contingent on horseback. I was in Ottawa for the crackdown, and some of the scenes were surreal.

On January 23, 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was both “unreasonable” and a violation of the rights of Canadians as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He found that the invocation of the act lacked “justification, transparency, and intelligibility,” infringed on freedom of expression, and violated protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” due to the freezing of bank accounts and suppression of protests.

The Trudeau government is appealing this decision, insisting — against all evidence — that the Emergencies Act was essential to restoring peace despite the fact that there was not a single incident of documented violence during the Freedom Convoy. Further to that, Royal Canadian Mounted Police commissioner Brenda Lucki directly contradicted the claims made by Mendicino, stating that law enforcement had not requested the Emergencies Act, a key aspect of the government’s justification for invocation. “There was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act,” Lucki told the Public Order Emergency Commission bluntly.

Interestingly, one of the early advocates of a crackdown on the Freedom Convoy was … now-Prime Minister Mark Carney. On February 7, a mere week into the protests, Carney penned a furious editorial in the Globe and Mail titled “This is sedition—and it’s time to put an end to it in Ottawa.” He claimed that people were being “terrorized”; that women were “fleeing abuse”; he stated, bluntly, “This is sedition. That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means ‘incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.’”

Carney went further, writing that although the protest might have been initially peaceful, “by now anyone sending money to the convoy should be in no doubt: You are funding sedition,” and called on the government to “identify those who are prolonging this manufactured crisis and punish them to the full extent of the law.” He opined that donating to the Freedom Convoy amounted to supporting an insurrection, concluding:

It’s time to end the sedition in Ottawa by enforcing the law and following the money … Decisive action must be taken to protect Canadians and our democracy. Our Constitution is based on peace, order and good government. We must live up to this founding principle in order to protect all our freedoms.”

Carney was already a key figure in Trudeau’s circle at this point, and it is difficult not to conclude that he was publicly building the case for what Trudeau would ultimately do: freeze bank accounts, invoke the Emergencies Act, and launch a crackdown. Ironically, a federal justice would conclude, based on a mountain of evidence, that the government crackdown Carney appeared to be advocating did precisely what he accused the convoy protesters of doing: violating the fundamental rights of Canadians.

Carney has kept understandably mum on all this since his leadership race and subsequent victory, although presumably he will be continuing the Trudeau government’s ongoing appeal to overturn the federal ruling that they violated the rights of Canadians. Indeed, for his Chief of Staff, Carney chose … Marco Mendicino, the very cabinet minister who appears to have blatantly lied about law enforcement requesting the Emergencies Act. Ironically, Carney also selected Chrystia Freeland, the minister directly responsible for freezing (at minimum) the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians, as Minister of Transport.

To state that the Trudeau government violated the fundamental rights of Canadians in cracking down on protesters often rendered desperate by their vaccine mandate policies — which they cynically used as a wedge issue in a (failed) attempted to secure a second majority government — is not a right-wing conspiracy theory. It is the considered opinion of a federal judge that, to date, has not been overturned. Carney appears to be cut from precisely the same cloth — and has surrounded himself with those who carried out the crackdown.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 8 mins ago

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warns Canadian voters of Liberal plan to penalize religious charities

illegal immigration / 53 mins ago

Despite court rulings, the Trump Administration shows no interest in helping Abrego Garcia return to the U.S.

COVID-19 / 9 hours ago

COVID virus, vaccines are driving explosion in cancer, billionaire scientist tells Tucker Carlson

COVID-19

COVID virus, vaccines are driving explosion in cancer, billionaire scientist tells Tucker Carlson

Published on April 15, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The spike protein from the COVID virus and shots cause persistent inflammation, which in turn suppresses the immune system, according to the accomplished Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong.

A billionaire scientist and cancer drug inventor told Tucker Carlson that the COVID virus and mRNA “vaccine” are driving an explosion in cancer among the young and old alike.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a transplant surgeon and owner of the Los Angeles Times, recently broke down in an interview how the COVID spike protein, persisting in people’s bodies both from the virus and the mRNA shots, is contributing to unprecedented cancer diagnoses.

Soon-Shiong likened the disturbing rise in atypical, aggressive cancer cases to a “non-infectious pandemic,” now claiming the lives of young people afflicted with cancers highly unusual for their age. He cited the fatal post-COVID case of a 13-year-old boy he had seen with pancreatic cancer usually found in people at least 45 to 50 years old.

He told Carlson how these cases were concerning him so much that he called a doctor friend whose experience mirrored his own. Soon-Shiong recounted how his friend told him, “Patrick, I’m now seeing an eight-year-old, a 10-year-old and 11-year-old with colon cancer … We’re seeing now 30-year-old, 40-year-old ladies, young ladies with ovarian cancer.”

Soon-Shiong explained that the challenge presented by cancer can be distilled into the question of how we can increase or activate the cancer killer cells and decrease or deactivate the cells that suppress the killer cells, which he called suppressor cells.

According to the doctor, what knocks these cells “out of equilibrium” is essentially inflammation.

A mechanism by which inflammation can help contribute to cancer is by flipping infection-killing neutrophils into suppressor cells, when the inflammation is “persistent,” according to Soon-Shiong.

Worse, after 50 years of scientific research and practice, he believes that “everything we’re doing” to address cancer “is tipping the scales towards the suppressor cells.”

To give context to the potential impact of COVID and its “vaccine,” he pointed out that there are cancer-causing viruses, called oncogenic, which persist in the body, thereby creating ongoing inflammation. COVID itself, as well as the mRNA shots created in response to the virus, both produce inflammatory spike proteins, he noted, which attach to blood vessels with ACE-2 receptors, found all throughout the body.

“So is it by coincidence that post COVID infection, post COVID vaccine, we’re seeing all these events where we know the spike protein goes? I don’t think so. I think it’s not a coincidence,” Soon-Shiong said. “So the question is, can we prove, is what I call long COVID virus persisting?”

“And the group at University of California, San Francisco, has now definitively proven that and published that in papers like Nature,” the doctor noted.

He said there is also published research showing that the persistence of the virus, which is likely the reason for “long COVID” symptoms, suppresses natural cancer-killer cells, making them “go to sleep.”

“And that’s why I sort of abandoned everything just to focus on how do we clear the virus, because the answer is to clear the virus from the body, the answer is to stop the inflammation,” Soon-Shiong said.

He has found that the virus persists in the body at least three to four years, and told Carlson he believes it cannot be cleared from a body that is immunosuppressed.

This accords with a Harvard study pointed to by the prolific internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, which shows that those suffering from long COVID likely have spike protein from the virus circulating in their bloodstream.

However, according to medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi and other doctors, there are simple ways people can clear their body of the COVID virus (or shot’s) spike protein, to which Soon-Shiong himself attributes the illness caused by the virus.

Trozzi has shared three methods by which one can help clear out the spike protein and minimize its effects: Accelerating the process of autophagy through intermittent fasting; ingesting Nattokinase, which “digests” the spike protein; and taking substances that block the uptake of the spike protein, such as ivermectin and quercetin.

Soon-Shiong believes the only way to clear the body of the virus itself is to have a “T cell, natural killer (NK) cells,” (a type of T cell), which are white blood cells which kill cancer cells. He attributed the fact that he himself did not suffer from a COVID infection to the manipulation of his own immune system, through what he calls a “bioshield.”

What the bioshield does is “educate your body to have these T cells, called memory T cells, that go and hide in the bone marrow and come out when they need it and kill that cell,” Soon-Shiong said. He told Carlson it was approved for public use in the U.S. in 2024 for bladder cancer.

Asked how we can strengthen our immune system for disease in general, Soon-Shiong said we should seek to “activate” the natural killer cell. This immune cell can be replenished with sleep and exposure to sunlight and can be preserved by avoiding food that has an immunosuppressive effect. This means sticking to natural foods and avoiding processed foods with toxins, such as red dye, according to the doctor.

During his interview with Carlson, Soon-Shiong also discussed how his proposed interventions for COVID were shut down by the FDA, the efforts to find “dirt” on him to prevent him from becoming the head of the NIH, his thoughts on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the healthcare establishment’s conflicts of interest, and why he decided to buy the Los Angeles Times.

Continue Reading

Freedom Convoy

A Miscarriage of Justice

Published on April 13, 2025

By

From Police On Guard For Thee

Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have finally reached the end of what became the longest mischief trial in Canadian history, with a total of 45 days in court spanning 31 months.
Both Tamara and Chris had received several charges resulting from their participation and leadership with the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa early in
2022. Their charges included counseling to commit mischief, intimidation, obstructing police, and disobeying a court order (this last charge was applied to Chris only).
Both were released on bail with conditions. One bail condition stated that Tamara was not to be in the company of specific individuals without her lawyer present. At an award ceremony honouring Tamara, she was photographed with one of these individuals – Tom Marazzo – while members of her legal team remained nearby. Justice of the Peace Paul Harris determined this to be a breach of her bail conditions and issued a warrant for her arrest.
Tamara Lich, a grandmother with no prior criminal record, was arrested in Alberta and held for 6 days before being returned to Ontario where she was again held while awaiting trial; she spent a total of 48 days incarcerated while violent criminals were being released with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Justice Goodman later released Tamara on a $37k bond stating that Harris had made “erroneous” conclusions and “misapprehended” the evidence against Lich when deciding she broke her bail conditions.
During the trial the Crown insisted that, as organizers of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara and Chris used unlawful means to pursue their goals. The Crown claimed that their actions caused significant interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of property, that they intentionally intimidated residents and obstructed police efforts (even though organizers were in direct contact and in regular meetings with police).
Their defence team countered, stating both were engaged in a lawful and constitutionally protected peaceful protest (as determined in the first injunction with respect to the horn honking). Defence argued that it is unreasonable to believe that Tamara and Chris could have controlled the actions of all who arrived in Ottawa (not just those who followed them there directly).
The defence further asserted that the message from both defendants had been consistent in its promotion of the peaceful nature of the protest; their goal had been expressed clearly throughout the duration of the Convoy.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, of the Ontario Court of Justice, presided over their case. In her view, the key issues included whether either Tamara or Chris (a) blocked or obstructed a highway; (b) interfered with the lawful use, operation or enjoyment of property; (c) obstructed police; or (d) counseled anyone to commit mischief, intimidation, or obstruction of justice. One final key issue for Chris alone – whether he counselled anyone to honk their horns in contravention of an interlocutory injunction.
In considering these key issues, Justice Perkins-McVey determined that the Freedom Convoy did in fact cause significant disruptions and interfere with the lawful use of property. (It should be noted here that most businesses were already shut down due to the mandates and those that remained open were inundated with fear mongering over the coming Freedom Convoy, with ‘suggestions’ that they too should close their doors).
The court further determined that both Tamara and Chris were aware of the impact their actions were having on residents and businesses in the area. She pointed to evidence showing that Chris was aware that police wanted the trucks gone, and that he had responded by stating they were staying until the mandates came down. She noted that both Tamara and Chris continued to encourage more people to join them, and finally, that Chris (through a TikTok video) had encouraged participants to “grab that horn switch and don’t let go” if police approached their trucks.
With these facts in mind, Justice Perkins-McVey found both Tamara and Chris not guilty of intimidation, counselling to commit intimidation, obstructing police, and counselling to commit the offence of obstructing justice. The charges for counselling to commit mischief were stayed on the recommendations of the Crown.
On the count of mischief, both Tamara and Chris were found guilty. Justice Perkins-McVey believed their actions contributed to the obstruction of the lawful use and enjoyment of property in the areas affected by the Convoy.
On the final charge against Chris, for disobeying a court order, she found his TikTok video to be sufficient evidence showing Chris deliberately encouraged others to disobey the court order prohibiting the use of air horns.
In summary, Tamara Lich was acquitted of four out of six charges with a fifth stayed, leaving only a single conviction of mischief. Chris Barber was acquitted of four out of seven charges with a fifth charge stayed, leaving Chris with a guilty verdict for the charges of mischief and of disobeying a Court Order.
In policing circles, mischief is not considered a serious offence. It is virtually unheard of to receive jail time, except in the most egregious of cases, yet the Crown is seeking up to 10 years for both Tamara and Chris – an utterly ridiculous and excessive request.
Sentencing for both is expected later this month, with a tentative date of April 16th.
While this incredibly long and involved mischief case was taking up valuable court resources, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $5 to $10 Million dollars, Crown prosecutors in Ontario had tossed out many cases involving sexual assault and other violent crimes, citing the continued issue of insufficient court resources.
“There seems to be a glaring double standard in prosecutions in Canada.”
This quote is from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) where President John Carpay confirms what many of us have long suspected.
Mr. Carpay explains, referencing the fact that 86 sexual assault cases have been tossed out in Ontario since 2016 due to court delays and insufficient court resources stating, “Crown prosecutors in Ontario claim that they do not have enough resources to prosecute people accused of sexual assault and other serious crimes….Yet the Crown has devoted massive amounts of its limited time and energy to prosecuting peaceful protesters who exercised their fundamental Charter freedoms.”
Mr. Carpay highlights the obvious double standard, stating that had Chris and Tamara been leading a protest against racism, transphobia or climate change, they would not have been subjected to a 45-day trial spanning 31 months.
He also made a point we can all agree with; “it appears that the charges against Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were laid for political reasons.”
The Freedom Convoy began as a simple protest against Covid-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truck drivers. Soon, thousands of Canadians found their voices alongside the truckers, tired of being treated as second-class citizens for a decision that they felt was personal and not one for the government to dictate. Denied the right to visit ailing loved ones, to work, travel, play or attend sports or just eat out; everyone affected was justifiably fed up and eager to join the truckers in voicing their frustration with these overreaching mandates.
Thousands of Canadians descended on the parliament buildings in Ottawa in hopes that the Prime Minister would listen to their concerns and negotiate. Instead, Trudeau turned his back and hid in his cottage, refusing to even speak to Convoy organizers.
That was a significant turning point for the Freedom Convoy. Until then people had hope, believing that the largest protest in Canadian history could sway our political leaders. Once Trudeau walked away, that hope turned to sheer determination, to hold the line until he relented and listened to the people. Instead, he insulted every one of us and spewed lies about both the cause and the atmosphere of the Convoy, trying desperately to turn Canadians against us.
Trudeau then decided to illegally invoke the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, to allow the use of violence to suppress convey participants.
A media release from The Democracy Fund (TDF) states, “The ruling ignites fierce debate over the boundaries of peaceful protest and the growing criminalization of political dissent in Canada. The verdict, delivered after 45 days of trial proceedings concluding on September 13, 2024, marks a significant moment in the legal treatment of protest-related cases, potentially deterring Canadians from exercising their rights to free expression and assembly out of fear of severe legal repercussions.”
Mark Joseph, Director of Litigation for TDF described the trial as a critical test of Canadians’ right to peaceful assembly. “This ruling is a bittersweet moment – while Tamara Lich’s acquittal on several charges affirms the centrality of free expression, the mischief conviction could be interpreted as punishing some participants for the actions of others,” “We remain committed to challenging any erosion of Canadians’ rights to protest.”
A post from Kiernan Green of The Hub, quoting directly from Statistics Canada, shows the incredible increase in violent crime in Canada to be over 130% from 2013, yet our government has chosen to go soft on these violent crimes while targeting peaceful citizens who dared speak out against the decisions of our political leaders.
In a social media post from Right Blend (@rightblend ) he states, “The authorities have spent an unbelievable amount of resources prosecuting Chris and Tamara to the end of the Earth because they had the audacity to stand up against the most oppressive restrictions on Canadian rights and liberties in generations. How many violent criminals were let off the hook because the court was spending precious resources on this and other Freedom Convoy cases?”
“Thank God for the Freedom Convoy. No matter what happens today, they already won.”
We couldn’t agree more.
The Freedom Convoy represented the combined voices of tens of thousands of Canadians who were beaten down by those trusted to protect us all. While it has become tragically clear that our government wishes to pick favourites, reducing the rest of us to destitution, both in freedoms and in spirit, we will always have the strength that the convoy instilled in us all. The knowledge that we are many and we are strong; that there are still Canadians who value what we used to stand for as a society – family values, freedoms and opportunity. We showed the world that our peaceful nature has a deeply imbedded determination.
We applaud both Tamara and Chris for their strength and determination. We respect their commitment to everything the Freedom Convoy stood for and for remaining true under the incredible pressures piled on them in the past few years and are proud to call them friends.
Regardless of the outcome, we offer our respect and gratitude to them both.
The Freedom Convoy will be remembered and celebrated for generations. To all who participated and supported this incredible event – Thank you.
To read the court decision, click the link; https://www.jccf.ca/…/2025-04-03-R.-v-Lich-and-Barber…
Continue Reading

Trending

X