COVID-19
Trudeau gov’t use of Emergencies Act ruled ‘not justified,’ violation of Charter rights
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/tvrd-lifesite-truckers-freedom-convoy-image-2024-01-23.jpeg)
From LifeSiteNews
Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre called for Trudeau to be ‘fired’ over his misuse of the Emergency Act. Poilievre argued that the current Prime Minister ’caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens.’
The Canadian Federal Court has announced that the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act was ‘not justified’ and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On January 23, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was ‘not justified’ in invoking the Emergency Act (EA) to shut down the 2022 Freedom Convoy which protested COVID regulations and vaccine mandates.
“Having found that the infringements of Charter sections 2(b) and 8 were not minimally impairing, I find that they were not justified under section 1,” Mosley wrote.
“I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”
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.
The Freedom Convoy protest took place in early 2022 in Ottawa and featured thousands of Canadians calling for an end to COVID mandates by camping outside Parliament in Ottawa.
In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government enacted the EA on February 14, 2022 to shut down the popular movement. The measures included freezing the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest.
RELATED: Court puts Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial on hold after resuming for just one day in the new year
Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA .
Additionally, several organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, the CCF, the Canadian Frontline Nurses, four private applicants, lawyers for the Alberta Government, legally challenged Trudeau’s invoking of the measure.
They have now won their case, a decision immediately celebrated by Canadians on social media.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre called for Trudeau to be ‘fired.’ He argued that the current Prime Minister “caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens.”
“As PM, I will unite our country for freedom,” he promised.
BREAKING: Judge rules Trudeau broke the highest law in the land with the Emergencies Act.
He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.
Sign here to fire Trudeau and unite… pic.twitter.com/k7d9VxozCK
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) January 23, 2024
Similarly, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer Eva Chipiuk wrote, “This is big! What does it mean for the federal government, elected officials and all those disparaged and defamed protestors, I do not know. But this is big news!”
“Do not be afraid to stand up to your government,” she encouraged. “In fact, it is your job as a citizen in democracy. Your voice matters, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”
🚨MAJOR NEWS!!!!🚨
The Federal Court of Canada just ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act ultra vires. In other words, it was an abuse of power, discriminatory, unconstitutional, beyond the legal power or authority, unlawful, illegal, etc, etc, etc!!!!
This is big! What… pic.twitter.com/P9qp3qBiUS
— Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM (@echipiuk) January 23, 2024
Additionally, the National Citizens Coalition celebrated the ruling, saying, “Trudeau and Freeland’s Emergencies Act was always ‘unreasonable.’ And of course they violated the Charter. Today’s judicial ruling is a win for all freedom-loving Canadians.”
NEW: Trudeau and Freeland’s Emergencies Act was always "unreasonable."
And of course they violated the Charter.
Today’s judicial ruling is a win for all freedom-loving Canadians. pic.twitter.com/lHXFJ81R4u
— National Citizens Coalition (@NatCitizens) January 23, 2024
In response, Liberal Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced the Trudeau government disagreed with the ruling and planns to appeal the decision.
It’s amazing how quickly the smile on her face has disappeared. The Feds now want to appeal the Federal Court ruling on The Emergencies Act. This vindictive Government will never admit they were wrong & they are blind to how this makes them look. pic.twitter.com/bXmNbabIYp
— Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱 (@ryangerritsen) January 23, 2024
COVID-19
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tvrd-ls-trudeau-marco-mendecino-image-2024-12-20.jpg)
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
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tvrd-australian-anti-covid-shot-dr-william-bay-image-2024-12-16.jpeg)
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.
A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.
The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.
Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”
Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”
Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.
The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.
This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.
Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.
READ: More scientists are supporting a swift recall of the dangerous COVID jabs
It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.
The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.
During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.
The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.
READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll
-
Alberta14 hours ago
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
-
COVID-192 days ago
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
-
Business2 days ago
Massive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink
-
Alberta10 hours ago
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
False Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation
-
COVID-192 days ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
-
National1 day ago
When’s the election? Singh finally commits. Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
COVID-191 day ago
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation