Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Trudeau’s AG claims Emergencies Act use was justified over ‘risk of serious violence’

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Trudeau government’s Attorney General and Justice Minister Arif Virani is still claiming that the 2022 Freedom Convoy posed a “risk of serious violence” that justified emergency measures, despite a federal court ruling to the contrary.  

Late last month, Virani testified at the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, arguing that the use of the Emergencies Act to end the 2022 Freedom Convoy protesting COVID mandates was justified as the protest posed a “serious risk” of becoming violent.   

“There was a risk of serious violence that was a crucial consideration supporting the decision to declare a public order emergency,” Virani said, according to information published February 29 by Blacklock’s Reporter 

“The sole purpose of the temporary measures that were made was to bring about a swift, orderly and peaceful end to the circumstances,” he added. 

Despite past and ongoing claims by the Liberal government and mainstream media outlets, there has yet to be one verified instance of 2022 Freedom Convoy protesters being violent.  

Instead, videos of the protest against COVID regulations and vaccine mandates show Canadians from across the country gathering outside Parliament where they joined in dance parties, played street hockey, and even put up a bouncy castle for children.  

Indeed, the only acts of violence caught on video were carried out against the protesters after the Trudeau government directed police to end the protest via the Emergencies Act. One such video showed an elderly women being trampled by a police horse.  

Virani’s claim comes as Trudeau is appealing the recent Federal Court ruling which found that his use of the EA in 2022 to crush the Freedom Convoy was “not justified.” 

According to the ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. It cannot be invoked unless all other measures have been exhausted.      

Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that there were other means to end the protest, such as provisions in the Criminal Code, which the province of Alberta had argued at the time.     

The decision stated that, in addition to being an unnecessary measure, the EA had violated Canadians’ Charter rights, specifically infringing on freedom of thought, opinion, and expression.      

Notably, in the Federal Court of Appeal, where the case is now headed, 10 out of the 15 judges  were appointed by Trudeau.     

The Trudeau government has repeatedly justified their use of the EA, claiming that they were following the advice of confidential legal opinion.  

However, Liberals have refused to disclose the identity of their advisor based on “solicitor-client privilege,” even ignoring a 2022 committee order that it release the document.  

“Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” Virani claimed, refusing to disclose the identity of the legal opinion sought by the Trudeau government.

“It is a sacrosanct privilege that has existed for centuries in British common law and it is one this government firmly believes in,” he added.  

After New Democrat MP Matthew Green pressed Virani for an answer by asking, “You identify the Government of Canada as the client; who is the solicitor?” Virani bizarrely replied that he himself is the solicitor. 

Green followed up by clarifying that Virani is saying he, a member of the government, is effectively both solicitor and client, to which Virani replied, “I wear different hats at different times,” adding, “It is important for Canadians to understand the Minister of Justice constantly provides as chief law officer of the Crown advice to cabinet.”  

2025 Federal Election

Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Mark Carney described the Freedom Convoy as an act of ‘sedition’ and advocated for the government to use its power to crush the non-violent protest movement.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney refused to elaborate on comments he made in 2022 referring to the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy protest as an act of “sedition” and advocating for the government to put an end to the movement.

“Well, look, I haven’t been a politician,” Carney said when a reporter in Windsor, Ontario, where a Freedom Convoy-linked border blockade took place in 2022, asked, “What do you say to Canadians who lost trust in the Liberal government back then and do not have trust in you now?”

“I became a politician a little more than two months ago, two and a half months ago,” he said. “I came in because I thought this country needed big change. We needed big change in the economy.”

Carney’s lack of an answer seems to be in stark contrast to the strong opinion he voiced in a February 7, 2022, column published in the Globe & Mail at the time of the convoy titled, “It’s Time To End The Sedition In Ottawa.”

In that piece, Carney wrote that the Freedom Convoy was a movement of “sedition,” adding, “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 on to claim in the piece that if “left unchecked” by government authorities, the Freedom Convoy would “achieve” its “goal of undermining our democracy.”

Carney even targeted “[a]nyone sending money to the Convoy,” accusing them of “funding sedition.”

Internal emails from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) eventually showed that his definition of sedition were not in conformity with the definition under Canada’s Criminal Code, which explicitly lists the “use of force” as a necessary aspect of sedition.

“The key bit is ‘use of force,’” one RCMP officer noted in the emails. “I’m all about a resolution to this and a forceful one with us victorious but, from the facts on the ground, I don’t know we’re there except in a small number of cases.”

The reality is that the Freedom Convoy was a peaceful event of public protest against COVID mandates, and not one protestor was charged with sedition. However, the Liberal government, then under Justin Trudeau, did take an approach similar to the one advocated for by Carney, invoking the Emergencies Act to clear-out protesters. Since then, a federal judge has ruled that such action was “not justified.”

Despite this, the two most prominent leaders of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, still face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the non-violent assembly. LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on their trial.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An Ontario judge dismissed a liability claim from a family of a high schooler who died weeks after taking the COVID shot.

According to a published report on March 26 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Ontario Superior Court Justice Sandra Antoniani ruled that the Department of Health had no “duty of care” to a Canadian teenager who died after receiving a COVID vaccine.

“The plaintiff’s tragedy is real, but there is no private law duty of care made out,” Antoniani said.

“There is no private law duty of care to individual members of the public injured by government core policy decisions in the handling of health emergencies which impact the general population,” she continued.

In September 2021, 17-year-old Sean Hartman of Beeton, Ontario, passed away just three weeks after receiving a Pfizer-BioNtech COVID shot.

After his death, his family questioned if health officials had warned Canadians “that a possible side effect of receiving a Covid-19 vaccine was death.” The family took this petition to court but has been denied a hearing.

Antoniani alleged that “the defendants’ actions were aimed at mitigating the health impact of a global pandemic on the Canadian public. The defendants deemed that urgent action was necessary.”

“Imposition of a private duty of care would have a negative impact on the ability of the defendants to prioritize the interests of the entire public, with the distraction of fear over the possibility of harm to individual members of the public, and the risk of litigation and unlimited liability,” she ruled.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Dan Hartman, Sean’s father, filed a $35.6 million lawsuit against Pfizer after his son’s death.

However, only 103 claims of 1,859 have been approved to date, “where it has been determined by the Medical Review Board that there is a probable link between the injury and the vaccine, and that the injury is serious and permanent.”

Thus far, VISP has paid over $6 million to those injured by COVID injections, with some 2,000 claims remaining to be settled.

According to studies, post-vaccination heart conditions such as myocarditis are well documented in those, especially young males who have received the Pfizer jab.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X