Commenting has been turned off for this post
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022

The government is setting precedents and everyone who agrees with what they did and whatever they may do with the inquiry ought to think very carefully because these precedents will determine the actions of future governments; including the ones you may or may not be quite so sympathetic to.

If they continue with a narrative doesn't legitimately (legitimately should be emphasized) deal with the accusations of overreach, future governments will be able to use the same path to attack any political opposition.

If the inquiry turns into a whitewashing that hides inconvenient documents or truths due to 'cabinet confidence' or 'national security', that sets the path for any government, right or left, to follow in the future.

Be careful what you wish for.

Expand full comment

Yes. This.

This article nicely captures not only the gross injustice, but the historic nature of the government's extreme overreach against fundamental rights.

Except, I think the overreach goes even a step further than suggested by this article. It isn't simply that it is a general warrant. From the article, "Rather than going to a justice and swearing an oath about why a particular person’s bank account needed to be searched for particular transactions relating to a particular illegal blockade ..." The implication here is that it was just the manner of approach, that there was an illegal blockade that the government could have frozen the same bank accounts had they followed the correct process. But I think that implication is also wrong.

The funds in question were from people supporting the Freedom Convoy 2022 which was only the protest in Ottawa. The crowdsourced funds, and the people involved, were only about the Ottawa protest. The Windsor, Ontario, and Alberta border blockades were neither the same people nor were they supported by the same crowdfunding mechanisms. Those could be termed illegal blockades.

As far as I'm aware, the Freedom Convoy 2022 Ottawa protest was never legally recognized as an "illegal blockade". Quite the opposite. In the February 7, 2022, court order regarding honking, the judge barred air horns and train horns (but not honking in general, as many journalists misinformed us) but also declared, "7. THIS COURT ORDERS that, provided the terms of this Order are complied with, the Defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest."

The order is here: https://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news-and-community/resources/Li-Interim-Order---CV-22-00088514-00CP.pdf

Further details of the complaint, order, and conditions are described here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/judge-court-orders-for-yourself?s=w

Not only did a judge view the protest as being legal -- if they stopped using air horns and train horns per the injunction -- despite the descriptions of the complaint, but the affidavits address even the idea of the protest being described as a "blockade". As noted by Daniel Bulford, one of the protest representatives, "I have been working closely with the Ottawa Police Service, the RCMP, and the Parliamentary Protective Service. I have been liaising with them since early last week."

As noted by even the Ottawa police at the time, and many times in interviews, that the protest leaders were consistently working with the police to keep emergency lanes open and out of residential areas, with the police even directly where the trucks can go. Repeatedly in the videos you can see people could travel throughout the downtown and easily get there, and go about their business. There was no blockade in Ottawa. Now, the police themselves did block off some streets on their own, even when there were no trucks there (e.g., Laurier bridge). But that was not the protestors.

Not a blockade. Not an illegal protest (by a judge's own statement).

Further, the article above notes that, "The emergency measures required financial institutions to search their records for customers suspected of “directly or indirectly” engaging in a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”

Had the government instead gone to a judge with the same position to get a warrant as suggested in the article, I think it would have -- or should have, failed. The Freedom Convoy 2022 was designed and declared to be a peaceful protest from the start, complete with warnings to watch out for agent provocateurs, to keep out of any government buildings, to be respectful of police and officials, and to avoid anything that could possibly be interpreted as hostile.

You can see it here in Tamara Lich's January 22 interview with Marc Patrone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc

Or look through her Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC

E.g., Jan. 23 video of her saying, "We are now starting to be attacked and smeared, and they're starting to say some pretty nasty things. ... So what I'm going to ask of you is to, if you are inclined, pray for them because they know not what they do. We are not here to spread hate. We are not here to create more division. We are here to stand up together and we are here to love one another, and forgive one another."


Or her Jan. 27 retweet from co-leader BJ Dichter, "Please join us in Ottawa for a peaceful and loving protest where we can rediscover freedom together."

Or also Jan. 27, "We are going to win this by showing love for one another. Be spiritual and be kind to all those around you."

And, retweet of Jan 27 post saying, "Everyone in Ottawa PLEASE film everything and everyone. If someone calls for violence GET THEM ON CAMERA. Shout “fed” at them and surround them. Ray Epps types will be in there trying to set people up. The media has shown that this is what they plan on framing the convoy as."

Or Jan. 28, ""Calm, peaceful and with love for everyone including those we disagree with."

and she calls out the expected agitators and agent provocateurs, and says "Keep calm and peaceful."

Or Jan. 28 retweet directed to all volunteer local organizers calling out warnings of agent provocateurs and reiterating to 1) not enter any government building or property, 2) treat all police officers with respect.


Or, from the above mentioned court complaint leading to the injunction, the affidavit from the United Way worker (detailed here again: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/judge-court-orders-for-yourself?s=w), stating:

"In these encounters, I have observed that all of the truckers I met have been, at all times, friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful. At no time have observed any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour nor have I at any time felt intimidated or unsafe. I state this as someone who was once the victim of assault on the streets of Ottawa in 2004 and who suffered PTSD as a result.

5. I have also observed that the truckers, and their supporters, are made up of the most diverse, inclusive and varied cross-section of Canadian demographics that I have ever experienced in my life. As examples, I saw a Sikh truck driver with his children, an Indigenous elder giving a blessing to the gathering, a black preacher performing a Sunday service, Canadians of all ethnicities and multiple families with their children.

6. I have observed truckers decorating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with flowers as well as guarding it. I also observed an encampment beside the Terry Fox Memorial as a means of watching watch over it. At no point have I ever seen violent or threatening behaviour.


9. What I have observed is not in accord with what I have seen in the media or what I have experienced directly either with the truckers, their supporters or the gathering of people on Parliament Hill. The media appears to be framing the convoy and the events around their presence in Ottawa in the most unfavourable, erroneous and distorted manner possible."

Given all of this information, what supporter or donator to the protest could possibly think of the protest as a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”?

The protest was designed from beginning to end, and as seen on hundreds of hours of video, and as attested to in court affidavits, as a peaceful and inclusive protest actively trying to suppress any attempts at breaches of the peace.

So, in summary:

1. Yes, to the main thesis of the article, the warrantless search and seizure is the biggest issue.

2. But, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, it should have failed anyway because it was not an "illegal blockade" but a legal protest, as even a judge certified.

3. And, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, and kept the justifications based on "reasonably expected" breach of the peace, it also should have failed because the protest was always designed from beginning to end to be peaceful and respectful, notwithstanding the misinformation of politicians and journalists.

[Edit: Notably, from the fact that the government could have gone to a court to get such warrants and didn't, one can reasonably infer that they know they'd lose because of items 2 and 3 here. The reasonable inference is that the use of the Emergencies Act was not a mere overstep, but recognized as the only means by which they could shut down the protest and maintain the false narratives.

They also could have sent an envoy to discuss with protestors, as they did with the 2020 (illegal) railway blockade and BLM protests, but didn't. It could have saved the $36M in police costs, the run on the banks, and the international embarrassment of authoritarian overreach.

Knowing that the government has plenty of legal experts, negotiators, and advisors, it is a reasonable inference that these were all intentionally avoided to maintain the defamatory narrative the government and corporate media created when it started. Losing in court or to be seen negotiating with "those people" with "unacceptable views" would reveal the man behind the curtain and admitting that they had mischaracterized the protests and protestors would have been a big hit to the "us vs them" divisive politics driving campaigns and policy efforts.

Or, so it is reasonable to infer. Alternative explanations could be that they are just police-state authoritarians who don't care about the rule of law, or that they are politically and legally inept. Extreme incompetence, dictatorial maleficence, or tribalistic corruption seem the only options here that I can see. If there's another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.]

Expand full comment

The article provide interesting information and I was enjoying the perspective until the author referenced Trudeau and Freeland with the titles of King and Queen. I do not respect name calling and therefore struggled to finish reading the article with curiosity and an open mind.

Expand full comment
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022

Considering the Trudeau Liberals are now pushing through Bill C 5 reducing mandatory sentences for violent crimes with a weapon, it proves very openly that the invocation of the Emergency Act was politically motivated. You can rob a store with a gun and have house arrest under their new idea of law enforcement and punishment. To even consider peacefully protesting against their vaccine mandates ( the same my body, my choice, they are all in a lather about saving for abortions) and they will financially, through unjust bail hearings, keep you locked in side, destroy and remove you from any chance of regaining control of your own life. The hypocrisy and evil that resides behind their actions must never be tolerated in any democratic society. It’s the Justin Trudeau Liberals and the Jagmeet Singh NDP that need to be financially and legally held responsible for their politically motivated actions. They should be removed and never allowed to participate in Canadian society. The same punishment they have placed on the unvaccinated.

Expand full comment

Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was meant to protect us from people like Justin Trudeau.

Expand full comment

I agree with your arguments. Let's hope that transparency prevails. I am, however, less enchanted by your snotty references to the King and Queen. Whatever you may think, they do deserve some respect for the positions they hold. Your comments are unbecoming of a future attorney, who is no doubt trying to impress his peers, but whom I would not be inclined to hire. As an aspiring attorney your opinions should be kept private and more importantly not shared in a public forum. That's good journalism! Keep it civil!

Expand full comment

The Emergency Act replaced the war measures act , which gave the state more authority. This act was supposed to have built in save guards such as independent review. Its use was limited to real emergencies. The question is whether or not it was justified in this case. No it was not. Laws were in place but not enforced which allowed that stupidity to go on. The implementation of the law was purely a political move. However it was our elected representatives that voted for it and it is the law of the land. So it can be used.

Expand full comment

Is the inquiry even going to get into the topic of whether the donations were basically a scam? It's hardly an unlikely chance: one American funding-call after another has turned out to be sliding a healthy payday over to the organizers, just change for the actual Cause. Steve Bannon had already been arrested for a Wall funding scam when Trump pardoned him.

I never heard more about the Convoy supporter who blew his whole savings, some tens of thousands, and only got runaround when he looked to the organizers for compensation.

How much was actually contributed, but not frozen, and never returned. How much was spent on legitimate Convoy expenses? Were records kept? Nobody ever seemed to ask why food and gas for a few thousand people would cost so many millions.

It could be that the freezing actually protected gullible Convoy contributors more than it helped anybody else.

Expand full comment

The Paradox of Tolerance

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of

tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to

those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to

defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the

intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and

tolerance with them.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance,

the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Karl Popper

Expand full comment

I didn't agree with the Freedumb convoy as I saw it as an attack on our Canadian electoral system, but I was very dismayed to learn that a sitting government, which should be defending our Constitutional rights and institutions, would go even further then the convoy organizers and were very willing to attack the protections that are given to Canadians under that Constitution. It was like watching the old lesson my mother gave us a children play out, "two wrongs, don't make a right".

Expand full comment

Thanks for explaining this and giving the historical background to the law.

Expand full comment

On the other hand, JT's use of the riot act was a good deal more refined than that of his father.

Expand full comment

Your arguments are cogent and deserve thoughtful consideration, and thank you for the history, but one could do without the hyperbolic language.

Expand full comment

I thought the convoy was just a collection of whining fools...until it began to impact the economy, and more importantly, had the Americans calling us an "unreliable trading partner". At that point, I really didn't care what tools the government used to open the borders. Up to that point, I just thought it was a stupid idea that wrote the next elections attack ads against the Conservatives.

I suspect that if border crossings hadn't been blocked, they might still be in Ottawa, but once it affected the economy, the whole thing had to go.

The article and the comment shave given me a lot to think about which I appreciate and will ponder. Trudeau's constant failure to be transparent will create the usual challenges. Hopefully, the judge will have none of it.

I also found the king and queen sarcasm demeaned the quality of the message. It may have been clever wordplay; it didn't work for me. The entire 3 weeks were a complete failure of policing, and of government leadership at all levels. But with the Bauder MOU, any credibility they might have still had (the US had the same rules) was lost. from that point on, the entire "protest" was a punchline. If you don't bring a solution to a problem, you're just whining.

Expand full comment

An excellent example of why people can't stand lawyers. This is just a classic legalese circle jerk word salad. Every one of these legal opinions are always about "slippery slopes" and "precedents", which may or may not ever materialize, but in the meantime plant enough doubt and hesitation to prevent anything common sensical or productive to get done in an expedient manner. Canadian society needs far less grey and a little more black and white - and in this particular case - right and wrong.

Expand full comment

Nope, even your tone tells me you don’t get it! And you weren’t impacted by the actions, nor the complicity of the police prior to the action.

Expand full comment