Canadian court calls out Trudeau for Freedom Convoy suppression

Yesterday was a big news day, not just in the Excited States of America but to the north of the World's Longest Open Border (TM). Those who participated in or supported the Freedom Convoy were finally vindicated when Mr Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Prime Minister Just In (from Jamaica) Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act to shut down the trucker protests against vaccine mandates and other lockdown measures unconstitutional. 

The lawsuit was brought against Canuckistan's Liberal misgovernment by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and other individuals concerned about the loss of freedom of speech, not to mention fines imposed by liberal judges and the confiscation (without notice or appeal) of their bank accounts.

The plaintiffs did not seek damages or reparations -- although claims for such may follow yesterday's ruling -- but a declaratory judgment confirming that Blackie McBlackface and his minions were wrong, wrong, wrong!

They argued before you can invoke the Emergencies Act, you have to have an emergency. The truckers' protests, they said, did not meet the legal threshold for the government to use the powers granted under the Act, which had never been used since its enactment in 1988, as a replacement for the War Mesures Act, a means of combatting terrorism. 

The invocationt of the Act by "Little Potato" (as the Chinese call M Trudeau) -- reportedly at the urging of Senile Joe Biden hisself -- allowed the federal government to arrest the leaders of the Freedom Convoy, freeze bank accounts of protesters, and seize donations by supporters of the protest, including many American citizens and organizations.

The Act states that, for the government to declare a public emergency, there must be "threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency." Was there such an emergency? In February of 2023 the Whitewash Commission presided over by Mr Justice Paul Rouleau -- a Liberal appointee -- found "with reluctance" that the threshold had been met. After all, Blackie had gone into hiding at an undisclosed location -- not Jamaica but somewhere in the Gatineau hills -- so he must have thought it was a real threat.

On the contrary, Mr Justice Mosley said, "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.

"The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern. But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act."

The judge went on to say that the actions from the government also "infringed" on the rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "It is declared that the Regulations infringed section 2(b) of the Charter and declared that the Order infringed section 8 of the Charter and that neither infringement was justified under section 1."

Prime Minister McBlackface was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration reported that the lovely and fragrant Deputy Prime Minister said during a cabinet meeting in Montréal that the government intends to appeal the ruling.

The case will almost certainly go to the Federal Court of Appeal and likely beyond that to the Supreme Court of Canada. But the decision of Mr Justice Mosley -- like Mr Justic Rouleau, a Liberal appointee -- will be hard for Trudeau’s minions to dismantle. 

Further reading: 

"Turns out bouncy castles aren’t a national emergency after all", by Andrew Lawton, 24/1/24 

"Was the Freedom Convoy a threat to Canada's national security?", WWW 28/11/22

Walt reviews the Anus Horribilis 2020 - Part 1: The Dempanic

Ed. here. 2020 is almost over, thank God, truly an Annus Horribilis if ever there was one. (I know my Latin but Walt insists on leaving the headline as he wrote it.) In the 11+ years of WWW, we've never attempted a full-on yearend review, but Mr Whiteman has ordered me to make space for a number of things he wants to get off his chest. This will probably take at least two posts, so let's begin....

News story of the Year

Without doubt the top story of this horrible year is Covid-19, aka the Corona Virus. Influenza, in various mutations, has afflicted humans since Adam was a little boy. I blame the lamestream media for turning an unusually virulent variant into a full-on worldwide made-for-media horror show, hyped way beyond what the nature of the beast deserves.

Nowhere was that more the case than in the Excited States of America, where the Democrats, never-Trumpers and the lickspittle controlled media saw their chance to blame the disease on President Trump, thereby subverting and overthrowing his theretofore-successful administration. 

Whether they will succeed or not remains to be seen, but to judge the extent of the media manipulation of the latest of plagues God has sent to chastise wicked humanity, let's compare Covid-19 with the Spanish flu which raged around the world just 102 years ago. Lasting from February 1918 through April 1920, the pandemic of 1918 -- the deadliest in history (including the present pandemic) -- infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide, about a third of Earth's population at the time.

Worldwide, the Spanish flu killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims, including some 675,000 Americans, out of a population of around 103 million. Around 25% of the American population was infected. Of those infected, roughly 2.625% died. That's all. 

With vaccines being rolled out -- the result of Operation Warp Speed, led by Vice-President Pence (lest we forget!) -- the Covid-19 infection rate should be, at worst, 10% of the US population of 331 million. And with modern medicine, the death rate will likely top out at no more than 1.5%. Do the math! That's under half a million, still a horrendous figure but nothing like as devastating, proportionately, as that of the Spanish flu. So could everyone please calm down!

While I'm at it, can I ask why it's OK to rfefer to the 1918 flu as the "Spanish flu", when it appears to have started in the good ole US of A. The first known case was reported at a military base in Kansas on 11 March 1918, and it is thought that American doughboys took it to France, and thence to the rest of Europe and parts of Asia. The news was suppressed in the newspapers of the World War I allies, but reported in neutral Spain, and that's how the disease came to be called the "Spanish flu".

The corona virus appears to have originated in Wuhan, China. That's what comes of eating bats! So why is it politically incorrect to call it "Wuhan flu", "Chinese flu" or "Kung flu"? Must be because the term "Kung flu" was used by Still-President Trump, thus making it "racist". All part of the plan to create the Dempanic as a cover for an attack on our civil liberties, including freedom to worship, to speak and even to think.

Take heart, dear reader. People, including all of us here at WWW, are starting to get vaccinated. And don't you dare not get your shot! Remember the drowning man who wouldn't get in the boat God sent him! By this time next year, please God, the pandemic will be over and we can start to count the cost of making a big fuss over something that wasn't, in the overall scheme of things, such a big deal.

Coming next: Poor Len Canayen's sports highlight of the year.

VIDEO: Why Ron Paul voted against Martin Luther King Day

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday in the USA, although not widely celebrated everywhere, including in my corner of the woods. The law proclaiming the holiday was passed by Congress in 1983. Dr Ron Paul was a member of the House of Representatives then. In this 21-minute video he explains why.

83% of French back expulsion of "most dangerous" foreigners

A new poll taken days after a self-proclaimed "soldier of ISIS" killed four people, including a heroic police officer, in the French town of Trèbes, shows the French public strongly support a serious crackdown on radical Islam. An overwhelming majority are in favour of deporting some 20,000 "most dangerous" foreigners tagged as "fiché S", meaning that security services have a file on them.

The poll, taken by Odoxa-Dentsu and published on March 30th in Le Figaro, gauged support for proposals put forward after the terrorist attack by Laurent Wauquiez, leader of France's newly-formed Republican Party. (Good choice of names, eh!)

Click on the graphic to enlarge it for ease of reading. If you don't read French, Walt will list M Wauquiez's four modest suggestions:
* Ban salafism (approved by 88% of respondents to the poll)
* Place in "administrative detention" the most dangerous "fiché S" cases (87% approval)
* Expel (= deport) the "fiché S" foreigners (83%)
* Re-establish the state of emergency lifted only a few weeks prior to the Trèbes "incident" (61%)

The blue circles show how support for the propositions breaks down according to the political preferences of those polled, from left ("de gauche") through "REM" (the party of President Macron) to right ("de droite") and "FN" (Marine Le Pen's Front National). It's worth noting that even leftists and centrist REM supporters approved the ideas put forward, with only one exception.

The bar graph at the left shows response to the question: Would you be in favour of some curtailment of liberties in order to better assure the security of the French people? 61% of those polled said YES, and even 50% of self-identified leftists agreed.

As for Salafism - a term which may be unfamiliar to some of our readers -- the majority of responders support banning of the radical Islamic sect, even though over half of them acknowledged that implementing the ban in France would be difficult, if not impossible. Breitbart London has previously reported on the nature of Salafism, which contains many radical preachers who see violence as legitimate in pursuance of its aims and which provides the intellectual basis for the Islamic State. A regional director of the German constitutional police said in 2017 that "every jihadist terrorist we've seen in Europe in recent years came from the Salafist scene."

The opinions of the French public are clear, and strong too. Will the government of Emmanuel Macron listen to the people? Are such politically incorrect opinions ever listened to by the government of any of our western democracies? Walt can think of only one prime minister or president who would heed the opinion of the people who elected him. I won't tell you his name but his initials are Donald Trump!

War endangers our freedoms! (Didn't you know?)

I can hardly wait to see Michael Moore's latest opus, Where to Invade Next, his first film in six years. Here's the trailer.



Where to Invade Next received much critical acclaim at TIFF and other film festivals, and is being much talked up by the lamestream media for being "funny" and not as dark and disturbing as his best earlier works. That got me thinking again about Fahrenheit 9/11, recommended here a few days ago in a message to Republican voters who might have been thinking about supporting JEB! in the primaries.

One of the main themes of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the way in which Dubya and his war-hawk cronies engineered the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to gain more and more power over the American people through the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on. The result is that now, more than ever before, the Paranoid States of America is a police state!

Which brings us to Democracy in America, by Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian. De La Démocratie en Amérique is a classic text, published in two volumes, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840, in which M de Tocqueville examines the democratic revolution that he believed had been occurring in Europe and then America over the preceding seven hundred years. He had something to say about the relationship between war and freedom. Here's a quote from a 1945 translation.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.... War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must also compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all t hings in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it.

I found that quote in The Ordeal of Total War, by Gordon Wright (Harper & Row, 1968). Here's Mr. Wright's commentary.

Tocqueville's dictum, appropriate enough in his own day, is even more applicable in the twentieth century. When nations must mobilize their total resources for a long struggle, the normal tensions between authority and liberty are intensified, and the trend toward dictatorship affects even the most democratic of nations. Where parliaments survive, their usual functions are sharply restricted; decision-making becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small executive group, or even in those of one man.

That was in 1968, before Americans learned the truth about Vietnam, before Nixon, before the Clintons and the Bushes. If Mr. Wright is still alive, he could justly say, "Don't say you weren't warned." Although it seems he doesn't stress the point in Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore can say the same thing.

Angus Reid: pollster, Catholic, shit-disturber

Walt was pleased to discover, just today, that there really is an Angus Reid. As in "Angus Reid, polling and market research guru". Mr. Reid is a Canadian, born in Regina SK on 17 December 1947. That makes him old enough to retire, and he can well afford so to do, having sold the polling company named after him for $100 million.

But at only 67, he's far from ready to put down his clipboard and pencil. Last year, shaped by his early career as a sociology professor at the University of Manitoba, he founded the Angus Reid Institute, so he could conduct "investigative polling" on the issues of the day. He’s already spent almost $1 million of his own money on it, and takes no salary.

Why? Because, with media outlets, governments and academics drastically cutting their polling budgets, Angus Reid feels called to make available his own surveys on a host of social, moral, religious, cultural and political questions. He was inspired by his mother’s fascination with spirituality and philosophy, the Jesuits who educated him, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian who was executed for resisting the Nazis. Now Mr. Reid is ready to do some of his own "shit-disturbing". That's the way he puts it in "Angus Reid, unchained", an interview with Vancouver Sun's Douglas Todd. "Anything, in our view, is fair game," he told the columnist. "We rely on no corporation, government or other source of funding.... I’ve always wanted to have complete free rein in the research I do."

Mr. Reid says he's free, now, to look into controversial questions "without fear.” That’s because, unlike most other polling companies, he doesn't need to worry about offending or embarrassing corporate or political clients through his polling, which is based on sampling from a pool of 130,000 Canadians who have registered with the Angus Reid Forum. [There's a link to the forum at the end of this post. Ed.]

Angus Reid is a practising Catholic, and attends Christ the Redeemer Church in West Vancouver. As such, he's not always pleased by the answers he gets to his questions on issues with moral as well as political dimensions.

For instance, he was dismayed by respondents' backing of assisted suicide, which he worries will be dangerous when doctors start “handing out suicide pills.” His poll on palliative care also showed how this potential alternative to assisted suicide is offered haphazardly.

He is likewise unimpressed that "a very large chunk of Canadians believe abortion is OK for choosing desirable characteristics in your kids." The era of designer babies may be upon us, he warns. His polling consistently reveals that Canadians (as well as Americans) are succumbing to the "trivialization of morality", including an obsession with the antics of celebrities.

"Consumerism is the new religion," Mr. Reid said. The number of Canadians who are "anti-religious" has risen to 30%. Another 40%  are in the “muddled middle” with regards to spirituality. And young people are increasingly uninterested in prayer. In his opinion, "These people don’t have any serenity in their lives."

Walt finds Mr. Reid's remarks sad commentary on the morals and mores of the society in which we live. But this is the kind of information we -- especially our political and religious leaders -- need if they are to guide us out of the morass of spiritual and ethical decay into which we have sunk.

The danger already too evident is that the same "leaders" will substitute poll results for their own moral compasses. "Never mind what's right! Do what's popular!" God save us!


Useful link: Want to make your opinions matter and get rewarded for your feedback? Click here to join the Angus Reid Forum (brought to you by Vision Critical). Does doing these surveys make any difference? Considering that governments and businesses pay thousands of dollars for polling, Walt believes so.

Experts warn against dangers of Canadian government's police state bill

Ed. here. Walt's comments below were posted a week ago. Today, CBC Radio's The House features an interview with Prof. Craig Forcese, of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, in which he highlights the serious flaws in Bill C-51, aka the Harper Police State Bill. We also recommend the backgrounders written by Prof. Forcese and Kent Roach, of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, which tells you in great detail why this bill is a threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Attention Canadian readers! Your civil liberties are threatened by Bill C-51, the "anti-terrorism" bill introduced by your Dear Leader, super-authoritarian control freak Stephen Harper.

The editors of Canada's self-styled national newspaper, the Globe and Mail -- the same ones who endorsed Mr. Harpoon and his party at the last federal election -- now accuse him of using his new spying law to create a "secret police force" in Canada.

Why call it a "spying law"? Because C-51 will give reckless and unnecessary powers to the Mounties, CSIS and other spy agencies, including the ability to detain people who haven’t committed any crime, with minimal oversight or democratic accountability.

Dear Canadian readers, don't let Harper mislead you as to what C-51 really means. Four former prime ministers -- Joe Clark, John Turner, Jean Chrétien, and Paul Martin -- are among almost two dozen prominent Canadians concerned about this bill!

Your rights and freedoms -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, even freedom of thought -- are in danger. Be sure to read "What's happening to Canada?!", posted here yesterday.

Your Dear Leader is telling you that people like Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair are careless of the security of the country, unpatriotic, and probably in league with the Islamic extremists too! The way he tells it, to be against C-51 is to be against Canada. If there's a climate of fear in the Not-so-great Not-so-white North today, Harper created it!

Yet, a poll published on Thursday claims 82% of respondents support this draconian, totally over-the-top legislation. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it. Did they ask you? Are you willing to trade your rights and liberties for "enhanced security" against the threats which are the direct result of Harper's pro-Israel, pro-American foreign policy?

There’s little doubt that many Members of Parliament -- including some Conservatives -- are concerned about the outrageous laws and lack of oversight. But before they stand up to Harper, they need to know that people across Canada will speak out too.

Dear Canadian readers, you must ask yourselves: are you the kind of people who give up your freedoms to fear-mongers, or are you the kind of people who will defend your democracy? Right now is the time to reject fear! Sign this online petition to stop the encroachment on your freedom of Harper's increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial state.

Thanks to Agent 34 for making us aware of the petition. Stay free!

Canadians! Sign the petition against Harper's police state bill!

Attention Canadian readers! Your civil liberties are threatened by Bill C-51, the "anti-terrorism" bill introduced by your Dear Leader, super-authoritarian control freak Stephen Harper.

The editors of Canada's self-styled national newspaper, the Globe and Mail -- the same ones who endorsed Mr. Harpoon and his party at the last federal election -- now accuse him of using his new spying law to create a "secret police force" in Canada.

Why call it a "spying law"? Because C-51 will give reckless and unnecessary powers to the Mounties, CSIS and other spy agencies, including the ability to detain people who haven’t committed any crime, with minimal oversight or democratic accountability.

Dear Canadian readers, don't let Harper mislead you as to what C-51 really means. Four former prime ministers -- Joe Clark, John Turner, Jean Chrétien, and Paul Martin -- are among almost two dozen prominent Canadians concerned about this bill!

Your rights and freedoms -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, even freedom of thought -- are in danger. Be sure to read "What's happening to Canada?!", posted here yesterday.

Your Dear Leader is telling you that people like Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair are careless of the security of the country, unpatriotic, and probably in league with the Islamic extremists too! The way he tells it, to be against C-51 is to be against Canada. If there's a climate of fear in the Not-so-great Not-so-white North today, Harper created it!

Yet, a poll published on Thursday claims 82% of respondents support this draconian, totally over-the-top legislation. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it. Did they ask you? Are you willing to trade your rights and liberties for "enhanced security" against the threats which are the direct result of Harper's pro-Israel, pro-American foreign policy?

There’s little doubt that many Members of Parliament -- including some Conservatives -- are concerned about the outrageous laws and lack of oversight. But before they stand up to Harper, they need to know that people across Canada will speak out too.

Dear Canadian readers, you must ask yourselves: are you the kind of people who give up your freedoms to fear-mongers, or are you the kind of people who will defend your democracy? Right now is the time to reject fear! Sign this online petition to stop the encroachment on your freedom of Harper's increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial state.

Thanks to Agent 34 for making us aware of the petition. Stay free!

Ralph Nader asks: What's happening to Canada?!

Thanks and a tip o' the tuque to Agent 34, who has passed along Ralph Nader's open letter to Canada's Dear Leader Steve Harper, expressing concern about what he (quoting the Globe and Mail) calls Harper's "Secret Policeman Bill".

Just like America's paranoid "Homeland Security Act", Bill C-51 threatens Canadians' civil liberties for the sake of protecting them from the threats of ISIS et al., which wouldn't even be a problem but for Mr. Harpoon's rabid Zionism and pointless meddling in the Muslim civil war in the Middle East.

In his weekly piece on CBC's The National, Rex Murphy warned that the "terror legislation" -- a phrase that cuts two ways -- sits at the intersection of public safety and individual liberty. He said that any proposal to protect the citizenry by abbreviating the liberties of the same citizenry must be examined as to its ultimate necessity, and put to the fullest parliamentary, media and democratic testing. Amen.

Now comes Ralph Nader -- long-time enemy of the abuses of power in the USA -- to ask why Canada is following his country down the Bush-Clinton-Obama road to a police state. Here are excerpts from "What's happening to Canada? Open letter from Ralph Nader to Prime Minister Stephen Harper"

Many Americans love Canada and the specific benefits that have come to our country from our northern neighbor's many achievements. Unfortunately, your latest proposed legislation -- the new anti-terrorism act -- is being described by leading Canadian civil liberties scholars as hazardous to Canadian democracy.

You are quoted as saying that "jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced" as a predicate for your gross over-reaction that "violent jihadism seeks to destroy" Canadian "rights." Really? Pray tell, which rights rooted in Canadian law are "jihadis" fighting in the Middle East to obliterate? You talk like George W. Bush.

How does "jihadism" match up with the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians, destroyed since 1900 by state terrorism -- west and east, north and south -- or the continuing efforts seeking to seize or occupy territory?

What has all this post-9/11 loss of American life plus injuries and sickness, in addition to trillions of American tax dollars, accomplished? Has it led to the stability of those nations invaded or attacked by the U.S. and its reluctant western "allies?" Just the opposite, the colossal blowback evidenced by the metastasis of al-Qaeda's offshoots and similar new groups like the self-styled Islamic state are now proliferating in and threatening over a dozen countries.

Have you digested what is happening in Iraq and why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no to Washington? Or now chaotic Libya, which like Iraq never had any presence of Al-Qaeda before the U.S.'s destabilizing military attacks?

Canadians might be most concerned about your increased dictatorial policies and practices, as well as this bill's provision for secret law and courts in the name of fighting terrorism -- too vaguely defined. Study what comparable practices have done to the United States -- a course that you seem to be mimicking, including the militarization of police forces.

You may think that Canadians will fall prey to a politics of fear before an election. But you may be misreading the extent to which Canadians will allow the attachment of their Maple Leaf to the aggressive talons of a hijacked American Eagle.

Canada could be a model for independence against the backdrop of bankrupt American military adventures steeped in big business profits…a model that might help both nations restore their better angels.