The Trudeau government went public this week with a condemnation of Cuba over its lack of free speech protections as the government deployed unprecedented powers to crackdown on Canadian truckers and their supporters. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the 1988 Emergencies Act for the first time to freeze accounts of truckers and contributions by other Canadian citizens. It was entirely unnecessary and, while the media is largely supportive of Trudeau, the powers have been condemned by civil liberties groups in Canada.
As noted by the Miami Herald, it is rare for Trudeau’s government to criticize Cuba where Canada has considerable economic interests. Canada not only pumps millions of dollars into the economy through tourism but Canadian companies hold lucrative mining contracts on the island.
The condemnation was triggered by Cuba’s outrageous sentencing of protesters from last July to up to 20 years in prison. The government was clearly correct in expressing its outrage. However, there was something jarring in the Trudeau government then adding “Canada strongly advocates for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly free from intimidation. We stand with the people of Cuba in their aspiration for #democracy.”
The 1988 law is meant to address the greatest national threats when existing laws are insufficient. However, there are ample laws allowing the clearing of roads and bridges. Trudeau is using the Act to intimidate not just the truckers but anyone who supports them. That includes sending lists of names to banks for accounts to be frozen and going to court to prevent donations from reaching the truckers.
Ironically, it was Trudeau’s father, who used the predecessor to the Act for the first time in peacetime to suspend civil liberties. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act on Oct. 16, 1970, after separatist terrorists calling themselves the Front de libération du Québec kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. The prior Act had never been used in peacetime and only twice before during prior wars.
Justin Trudeau, like his father, has never been a strong supporter of free speech. Indeed, he has more often championed its limitations. He previously declared that “freedom of expression is not without limits . . . we owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”
He has long been criticized for his anti-free speech policies, including his move to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to criminalize any “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” That regulation of speech was criticized for its vague terms to prevent “social media platforms, [from being] used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people, or used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic views that target communities, put people’s safety at risk and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.”
The sweeping and ambiguous standard is clearly intended to chill speech and allow the government the broadest possible scope of powers over speech. It is the codification of the type of ambiguous speech codes used on college campuses.
The timing for the condemnation of Cuba’s free speech policies could not be worse. As the statement went out, images of protesters trampled by police horses were triggering outrage in Ottawa. Yet, Trudeau has always relied on a largely compliant and supportive media in cracking down on conservative speech or dissenting views.
Trudeau caused an uproar when he condemned members of Parliament questioning his powers as supporting Nazis. Trudeau later refused to apologize for his comments.
The sense of impunity by Trudeau is understandable. The media has largely echoed his attacks on the truckers and supported his use of these powers despite the clear threat to free speech and associational rights. We have a de facto state media where the government reasonably expects media and social media to reinforce its message — and effectively silence its critics. To raise questions about these measures is to invite attack.
The response to the Canada crackdown is particularly striking. When mounted officers were shown holding off undocumented migrants at the border, the media went into a collective condemnation of photos that falsely suggested that officers were wipping migrants with their riding straps. This false claim was amplified by President Joe Biden who promise (before any investigation) to punish the officers. (The Administration continues to this day to refuse to release the results of its investigation or to clear these officers). The fact that people fell around a mounted unit does not make the Canadian police the new Cossacks. However, the same was true for the customs officers who actually appear to have been falsely accused.
The fact is that the government always had the power to clear these roads. Trudeau wanted to use the crisis to crackdown on political opponents by threatening funding and chilling supporters. The media has again assisted in this effort by using hacked information to name some of those who are donors. While Twitter barred discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election on clearly false grounds of hacking, Twitter is allowing such hacked information to be used against supporters of the truckers.
The personal information of roughly 90,000 donors was leaked after hackers reportedly compromised the accounts of GiveSendGo late Sunday. Media figures reportedly posted the hacked list to facilitate the harassment. There is still no word of an FBI investigation into the hacking. In the meantime, donors report being harassed and doxxed by supporters of the Trudeau government and its crackdown on the truckers. It is an organized attempt that parallels the efforts of the Trudeau government.
While Canada is not sending away people for 20 years, it is clearly seeking to use these powers to chill the exercise of free speech. The millions of frozen contributions for the truckers could have been used to support trucker families or activities other than the blockades. The government now could use such powers to shutdown any political group in the name of public safety.
The Canadian government has assembled a blacklist of citizens to have their accounts frozen while blocking support for the movement. It is all meant to intimidate those who want to speak and associate freely. That does not make Canada the new Cuba. However, it also does not make Canada the true north for guiding other nations on the freedom of speech.
Jonathan: Kind of off point but did you see the National Archives has confirmed that among the 14 boxes Trump stole and took back to Mar-a-Lago were “classified” docs. The docs were not just “love letters” from the North Korean leader. The NARA has referred the case to the DOJ for investigation. In your column of 2/11/22 (“Trump Accused of Taking Top Secret Material to Mar-a-Lago”) you tried to make the case against prosecuting a former president under either the PRA or USC 18, Section 2071. That argument won’t fly because Trump is a private citizen now and Section 20171 refers to “any” document–whether “classified” or “top secret” or otherwise. But you argued that “presidents have long chaffed” at the statutory requirements for retention of official docs. That may be true but no president, neither Democrat nor Republican, has engaged in the wholesale destruction or theft of official docs like Trump. Nixon only tried to get rid of 181/2 minutes from that infamous Oval Office tape. You have been strangely silent about the new NARA revelations. Why is that?
Oh please. It’s not like he wiped servers with cloths or smashed phones with hammers or anything.
We can only imagine what the highly politicized Merrick Garland DOJ will do with its “investigation.”
BleachBit
Trump secreted them out in his socks, so the point is moot.
TRUDEAU ihas shown via WORDS and ACTIONS is a TRUE DICTATOR, a PUPPET of the GLOBLIST/DAVOS/WORLD ECONOMIC LEADERSHIPS. OTTAWA is TRUDEAU TINEMAN SQUARE. Don’t forget Trudeau admirers, refer to his past comments, XI and the Chinese Dictatorship. As long as Trudeau remains in power free speech/freedom is dead in CANADA.
Jonathan: If polls are indication the anti-vaccine trucker protests in Canada have very little public support. Ottawans, 9 in 10, say it’s time for the protesters to go home. Polls also indicate fewer than 3 in 10 Canadians are against vaccine mandates. Ironically, the majority of truckers are vaccinated. But you, FoxNews and Trump want this to be the a cause celebre for right-wingers everywhere. Trump praised the protesters “peacefully protesting the harsh policies of the far left lunatic Justin Trudeau”. Blockading the border and the streets of Ottawa is not “peacefully protesting” and that is why the Canadian government is taking action. This is not the position Trump took after street protests erupted after the killing of George Floyd. Then Trump wanted to use federal troops to quell the protests which were largely non-violent and did not blockade streets. The fact is the Canadian protests are largely supported by right-wing groups her in the US. Because the Canadian protests are fizzling out truckers here are planning to drive from California to Washington, DC starting about March 1. If they blockade or occupy the Washington Mall or DC streets will you still claim it is a “free speech” issue? If this were done by Antifa or BLM I’m sure you would be shouting for “law and order” from the roof tops!
Freedom is not (just) a rightwing concern and even if 99.9% of Canadians were not in sympathy with the truckers or any other group, that does not impact their right to free speech. Free speech is not a popularity contest.
Does Canada have a 1st Amendment?
No. And if the current administration gets its way we won’t either.
The 33 dead and $500,000,000 in destroyed property would beg to differ with your peaceful statement. They can’t. They are dead.
Mac, don’t Make Stuff Up.
David, you need a reality check. Go to Minneapolis and check out the hundreds of burnt-out buildings following the George Floyd BLM so-called peaceful protest. Minneapolis and Saint Paul alone had a half a billion dollars worth of damage from Arson and looting. The Democratic governor and mayor watched for two nights on TV as the arsonist and looters did their thing, while they sat on their hands and did nothing, no police support no fire support no National Guard support , nothing. They didn’t even protect the third precinct police station as they burned it down with officers inside which had to be pulled out by helicopter from the roof. This is your liberal peaceful protest in spades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis–Saint_Paul
Dennis, do you approve of Trudeau’s newly given-to-himself dictatorial powers? Does it sound to you as though Trudeau “loves all Canadians?”
What happens when emergency powers grabbed for just a “wee bit of time” become permanent? What happens when the next PM is a “Donald Trump” who now has the same dictatorial power over citizens that Trudeau has undemocratically and unconstitutionally granted unto himself?
There is no “emergency.” There is no “violent” protesting going on. There is no “blockade” in the streets of Ottawa.
Trudeau is lying. His captured media is lying. People who regurgitate government propaganda and lies are complicit in the fall of a free Canada.
The destruction of Canada’s free democracy is happening right before the eyes of those Canadians who dared to go to Ottawa and see with their own eyes what is *actually* happening to their country.
…Trump took…
…Trump wanted…
Uh, those aren’t the same. How much do they pay you guys?
Another point to make….there is no way a President Trump would remain silent, like Joe Biden, and let Justin from Canada get away with this itshay.
When asked about intel gathering on protesters, Ottawa Police Chief says they will be coming after protesters *for months to come*…
“If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and *follow up with financial sanctions* and criminal charges. Absolutely.”
You okay with this after-the-fact continuing retribution, Dennis? I don’t recall hearing anything like this after BLM riots destroyed property, assaulted cops, and set cities on fire. Not anything even close. Trudeau bent a knee to *those* protestors.
First of all Dennis, I don’t know where you’re getting your data from, but I assure you you’re wrong. Support for removing the mandates jumped 15% after the truckers got rolling.
Secondly, the people in the protest are of every conceivable sort… First Nations people women, Muslims, Sikhs, all sorts of minorities which typically vote Liberal in Canada.
In other words, this is far from a right wing protest. And a vote from the people in Ottawa is understandably going to be biased, because they were the ones at the pointy end of this protest. Unfortunate for them, but if they choose to live in the capital city, they’re going to have to expect some sort of ruction from time to time. Part of the price of living in the big city.
The fact is, crime went down considerably with the truckers there. Those people are safer with the truckers in place then with their own police force.
I have friends who are a part of this protest, one of them the owner of a trucking firm. One of her comments to me earlier today was that the police are lying about most of what is going on, and the media is not showing the truth.
That doesn’t surprise me in the least.
“Oh Canada: Trudeau’s Government Condemns Cuba Over Free Speech As Canada Cracks Down on Free Speech”
– Professor Turley
______________
“God Bless America: Abraham Lincoln ‘Cracks Down’ on Freedom”
True Dope and Castro Got Nothin’ on “Crazy Abe!”
Why do Americans study Canada and Cuba while ignoring the facts and the truths of the “Fundamentally Transformed” Divided States of America?
America is under the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” today because “Crazy Abe” Lincoln conducted a wholly unconstitutional, barbarian “Reign of Terror,” including an illegal war, depriving Americans of their freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right of habeas corpus, right to private property, etc., ultimately killing 1 million Americans and improperly ratifying the antithetical and illicit “Reconstruction Amendments” with a gun to America’s head and under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation, as he commenced the century-long incremental imposition of the principles of communism, having been provoked and impassioned into communist revolution and then congratulated for his efforts by none other than Karl Marx himself.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
_____________________________________________________________
How ’bout that “Crazy Abe?”
______________________
“Stop the Presses: Lincoln Suppresses Journalism”
“Federal troops soon occupied the entire Washington suburb. Union Colonel Orlando Willcox then ordered the Alexandria Gazette to publish a proclamation declaring martial law. Rather than comply, editor Edgar Snowden shut down the paper, whereupon Union soldiers seized the office, smashed property and allegedly stole valuables. A precedent had been established. Snowden lay low until October, when he launched a new journal called the Alexandria Local News, vowing the venture would focus on “the truth, as far as that can be reached.” Union forces kept their eye on Snowden, and his comeback proved fleeting. When later that year Union troops seized the rector of an Alexandria church merely for omitting the customary prayer for the president, Snowden denounced the arrest as an “outrage.” Soldiers responded by setting fire to the headquarters of the Local News. The beleaguered editor suspended operations yet again, only to reopen the old Gazette in 1862. Two years later he himself would be arrested.”
– Historynet.com (excerpted)
______________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
_________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
________________________________________________________________
“THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD”
– KARL MARX
___________
“THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS”
The attempt here to tie the authoritarian response of Justin Trudeau as equivalent to the actions taken by Lincoln are wildly misplaced. Trudeau’s actions have taken place in the context of suppressing even peaceful dissent under penalty of arrest with forfeiture of property (and money) as a proper exercise of federal authority during a period of peace. Lincoln’s actions were taken under the reality of war.
One’s perspective defines whether one calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression” or “The War of the Rebellion”. The label one uses is inconsequential to the outcome as the most costly in terms of lives and property in our history. For a very long time 620,000 casualties has been quoted as the total cost in lives on both sides. More recently, a study using census data from the 1850s-1870s makes the case that a figure of 750,000 is more accurate. Regardless which number is correct, hardly anyone was untouched by the violence.
When Confederate forces took Fort Sumter in April of 1861, the first shot had been fired in this bloody epoch. Understanding his Article II duties to defend the Nation from attack, Lincoln issued a Proclamation in mid-April summoning the land and naval militias in response. Some have taken to describe this as Lincoln’s “Declaration of War” although I don’t believe this is accurate. In that same Proclamation, Lincoln summoned the Congress (which was not in session at the time) back to Washington to consider a proper response. In July of 1861, Congress had produced what it considered to be the “aims” in prosecuting the war. While this was not a formal declaration of war, it did provide Lincoln political cover that what he would do as commander-in-chief had the backing of Congress.
I could prolong the discussion by focusing on how both sides took actions during the war that were extra-Constitutional, but since the original posting focuses on the North, so will I. It is without question that not only historians of our day but those in the 1860s as well that felt some of Lincoln’s actions were not constitutional. One of these was none other than Chief Justice Taney himself, who had been a thorn in the side of the Lincoln administration since the Merryman decision. Suspending the writ of habeas corpus was opposed on both technical as well as constitutional grounds. Because the order to suspend the writ was signed by Secretary of State Seward rather than Lincoln himself, some believed it to be invalid. Others felt Lincoln had assumed an authority given expressly to Congress. I am not aware from what I know of the historical record that there was any effort in Congress to oppose what Lincoln had done, however. After the war, the Supreme Court declared that suspending the writ was an authority vested in Congress alone.
Another controversy was regarding Lincoln’s desire to arrest the Chief Justice. More and more, it is becoming obvious that this indeed was a serious consideration of the President, and that he had actually signed the arrest warrant himself. In the end, a DC marshal did not execute on the warrant.
Lincoln did sign off on the closure of some newspapers that printed what we would call “disinformation” today. There were also arrests made of editors and publishers by military authorities with Lincoln’s knowledge. That much is known. Other actions such as Sherman’s burning of Atlanta have not been shown to be ordered by Lincoln, although General Grant and Lincoln were aware of Sherman’s “march to the sea”.
Although Lincoln did not live to see Reconstruction take shape, the goal of Reconstruction was not only to rebuild the devastated South but also to “reconstruct the Union” as it had been prior to the War. I see no evidence of Reconstruction having any similarity to Marx’s use of the same word.
“CRAZY ABE” LINCOLN WAS AN ABJECT HIGH CRIMINAL OF THE MOST HEINOUS SORT
Please cite the Constitution wherein secession is prohibited or precluded. Of course, you can’t because secession is fully constitutional. End of debate. Lincoln had no power to deny secession, start a war, deny freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, suspend habeas corpus, smash printing presses, throw political opponents in prison, confiscate private property or ratify amendments with a gun to America’s head having ravaged the nation with war, and under the duress of post-war military occupation.
American constitutional freedom lasted for 71 years, at which point the 100-year, incremental implementation of communism began under comrade “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.
And, of course, there was no rebellion. There was secession. You are an spin doctor, apologist, charlatan, fraud and liar. When one is playing Chess or Monopoly, one must abide by the rules; in a society of laws, laws must be obeyed. “Crazy Abe” broke all the fundamental laws and invaded a sovereign foreign nation that had availed itself of its constitutional right to and freedom of secession, not dissimilar to and precisely that same as the 13 colonies in the American Revolution and countless other nations throughout history. West Virginia seceded from Virginia and is still seceded. Perhaps you haven’t noticed.
There were legal and constitutional domestic efforts to end slavery and those efforts were increasing in America and Europe. Imagine, the slaves ultimately freed and compassionately repatriated for their own benefit, self-esteem and sense of nationhood, without war, and America still under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as was the intent of the Founder Fathers.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
_______________
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2018/05/20/its-debatable-do-states-have-right-to-secede-from-union/985280007/
After the war, The Supreme Court of the United States in 1869 in Texas v Wright stated there was no right to unilaterally secede. You can disagree with it if you wish, but that is the way secession is viewed and has been for >150 years. Even Justice Scalia in a private letter in 2006 stated, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” The Texas v Wright case crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the “perpetual union” of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States.
Certainly there were strong feelings then as now regarding the right to secede. In this case, if ever the Constitution were silent on this matter, the outcome of the War decided the question definitively. Were there to be a serious attempt at unilateral secession today, I am sure the President would quash it using the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of active-duty or National Guard troops for federal law enforcement in cases when “rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S. by the ordinary course of judicial proceeding.,” Under this scenario the laws against Posse Comitatus are superseded.
As an example, supposing Maine wished to secede and join Canada. It could not do so unilaterally. If the people through their representatives in Congress approved the request (as well as Canada’s Parliament approved it), presumably the border could be re-drawn. I believe there is a quirk in the law that applies to Texas as part of its decision to renounce its status as a republic in favor of being annexed/joining the Union that would permit it to divide to up to 5 states. If Texas chose to exercise that right, I am not sure that Congress could deny it since it was approved by Congress at the time of annexation.
While a number of petition drives have sought to force the issue again before the Federal Government, none have met the threshold requirement for serious consideration.
jajuan62
You prevaricate as you advocate violating the law; unfortunately, you are wholly impotent and ineffective when you create phantom arguments against extant law.
Read the law, don’t cite your allies who, for whatever false and contrived rationales, support your proposal to violate the law.
There is NO prohibition or preclusion of secession in the Constitution and it is, therefore, irrefutably constitutional.
You are incoherent in terms of the law.
You just stated that a Supreme Court in 1869 claimed and exercised the power to amend the Constitution – that criminal court was an extension of criminal Lincoln and it extended the crimes of Lincoln.
The Constitutional remedy was impeachment and conviction – Congress in 1869 was an extension of Lincoln and it extended the crimes of Lincoln by not impeaching and convicting that court.
The executive and judicial branches have no power to legislate, modify legislation or modify legislation by “interpretation,” nor do they have the power to amend the Constitution.
If it was acceptable for Lincoln to violate the law, it will be acceptable for a future president to violate the law, and nullify every act of Lincoln and his successors.
Lincoln violated the law seized power to “save the union,” a conservative president will be justified in seizing power to “save the nation” by the actions of Lincoln.
You cited “precedents,” Lincoln will be the “precedent” for a future, truly conservative president.
Please inform readers if you are for law or against law.
Either America is a society of laws or it is not.
You did not address the Constitution regarding secession.
Secession is rational and logical.
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and it is, therefore, fully legal and constitutional; secession has occurred multiple times in history, including West Virginia.
Are you lucid; do you also believe divorce from a marriage is illegal?
Lincoln was a criminal who violated laws and you and your situational “allies” are wrong.
Chief Justice Taney swore an oath to support the Constitution; he did precisely that in proving Lincoln to be a high criminal.
“Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ…”
“…that power has been resisted by a [criminal] force too strong for me to overcome,…”
____________________________________________________________________
“Lincoln and Taney’s great writ showdown”
“Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The Great Writ’s origins go back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215 and the writ compels the government to show cause to a judge for the arrest or detention of a person.
After the start of the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus near railroad lines that connected Philadelphia to Washington, amid fears of a rebellion in Maryland that would endanger Washington.
On May 25, 1861, federal troops arrested a Maryland planter, John Merryman, on suspicion that he was involved in a conspiracy as part of an armed secessionist group. Merryman was detained at Fort McHenry without a warrant. Merryman’s attorney petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court for Maryland, which Taney oversaw, for his client’s release.
On May 26, Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered General George Cadwalader, Fort McHenry’s commander, to appear in the circuit courtroom along with Merryman and to explain his reasons for detaining Merryman.
Cadwalader didn’t comply with the writ and instead sent a letter back to Taney on May 27 explaining that Lincoln had authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they felt there were public safety concerns. Taney then tried to notify Cadwalader that he was in contempt of court, but soldiers at Fort McHenry refused the notice.
On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.
However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.”
– ConstitutionCenter.org
Never falter George keep on trying to change hearts and minds about Abe Lincoln that’s a very normal and sane thing to do. No notes.
Thank you so much.
Do you suppose that people should learn the lesson of Lincoln to choose the laws they obey and disobey the laws they reject?
Do you imagine that new (actual) Americans have any idea that their country exists under the principles of communism, not of the Constitution, or where their country came from, its ideological origins and its Founders’ intent, and that Lincoln knocked America off it’s freedom path with the continuing support of Karl Marx, the icon of enslavement to the state?
Do you suppose they should believe America was always communist from the outset?
I agree. You’re correct. Mum’s the word.
And kudos to Generals Secretary Castro, Truedope, Jinping, Putin, Kim, Maduro et al.
I apologize.
I forgot to thank you for reading.
Please continue.
I do not pretend to be an expert on Canadian law or its constitution; however, it appears there has not (yet) been reported any constitutional violations in what the prime minister did. Perhaps it is time to mention the obvious: Canada is not the United States, and never has been. Its constitution is substantially different than ours. In a recent election (or perhaps it was a poll, I don’t remember), the prime minister’s position on mandates was supported by a majority of Canadians. A majority of Canadians oppose the truckers’ positions and their actions to blockade the Ambassador Bridge. In my view, it is not just the media that is supportive of Trudeau, but also the population at-large.
The use of the Emergencies Act meet certain criteria, and those criteria have not been met in the opinion of every single constitutional lawyer an expert, including the last founding signatory and co-author of our charter of rights. In fact, those criteria are clearly delineated in the opening paragraphs of the act. Trudeau is way out of line constitutionally here.
The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of men are natural and God-given. Canadians are not asking, they are telling. Freedoms that are provided by nature and God are, by definition, universal. That universe includes Canada. Governments cannot provide freedoms, they can only deny them as egregious dictatorships. Ultimately, all the despots and dictators throughout the world, nay, the universe, must be taught that freedom is natural and God-given.
I think the only true North in your view of civil liberties is that held by the man who shares your office. You know him: he holds the Shaprio Professorship at the Law School.
I guess the Canadian government does not realize Cuba’s free speech protections are very similar to their own. Cubans and Canadians are free to express their thoughts opinions so long as they are aligned with government views and policies.
Imagine for a moment that you are a Canadian citizen and you have come to the realization that if you don’t go along with everything your government does your bank account can be seized, your name will be revealed for the purpose of public scorn, and your dog and your children will be confiscated by your government. You also can be put under house arrest for two weeks if you fail to comply. The Canadian citizen must be feeling the chill to their bones. It might not be Cuba yet but it’s pretty damn close.
These ad hoc actions of the Canadian governments are outrageous violations of their Constitution. As thinkitthrough wrote, imagine that action by the USA government..
A little off topic but–as a result of globalism, the West Coast is now more loyal to Beijing than it is to Washington. The snob class on the West Coast makes a lot of money exploiting cheap, Chinese labor (including political-slave labor) and doesn’t want anybody telling them to do otherwise.
Am I a conspiracy nut? Eileen Gu, a PRIVELEGED Californian if there ever was one, elected to represent Beijing, not the US in the Winter Games (she also supports BLM). Zhu Yi, another Californian, renounced her US citizenship and represented Beijing in the Olympics. See a pattern yet?
It makes economic sense for Beijing to be aligned with West-Coast oligarchs, but Beijing expects those same oligarch’s to be politically aligned with Beijing, and don’t doubt me, they are. Leftists on both coasts have openly extolled the Chinese model of free speech (an ugly oxymoron). Some are still shielding Beijing from the lab-leak theory.
This fealty works perfectly for Beijing because they assume the Pacific to be a zero-sum game: whoever owns the West Coast also owns Taiwan, because West-Coast separatism will eventually isolate Washington’s influence in the Pacific.
It would be oversimplifying to suggest woke ideology is caused by Beijing, but Beijing is happy use media and academic leftists to change the subject from Beijing’s persecution of millions in Hong Kong, Tibet, and western China. There is a money trail there.
I keep referring to Beijing because Beijing is not China. Many Chinese deeply resent the heavy hand of apparatchiks in Beijing, so if Eileen Gu thinks me a racist, she lacks nuance.
By the way, Eileen–like Zhu Yi–you need to renounce your US citizenship. The racists who run Beijing don’t allow white citizenship.
Wow! Thank you for your words of wisdom, Diogenes!
Great minds think alike 🙂
The Great Reset on display. First it was Australia, then New Zealand, Austria, and now Canada. The cops and soon the military will be the enforcers for the Elitists. “OBEY or be CRUSHED”! The USA will be next. Remember the actions and speech of Milley and Lloyd Austin? Coming to a protest near you…
Like father , like son. Trudope is feeble minded. He has this penchant for being grandiose to somehow boost his lacking self confidence. His “unacceptable views” and claiming swastikas and stars & bars flags amongst the protestors holds no water. His absolute unwillingness to face his shame and talk to the protesting portion of canadian people is telling . It also shows his weakness and highlights further his appalling lack of abilities to lead with any semblance of common sense. He is a klaus schwabophite and it shows. The only difference from Trudope and biden is he is not senile yet. Both are believers in big brother knows best and aim to make everyone an apparatchik of state will by hook or crook.
“DE FACTO STATE MEDIA” – That says it all. Confiscation of private property – outrageous!
Cassidy, if people give to the Freedom Truckers, leftists steal it, and if leftists give to BLM, other leftists steal it. Does anyone besides you and me detect a trend here?
I wonder if Democrats will still support open borders if millions of conservative Canadians start moving south. Cubans and Venezuelans are rescuing Florida from the psycho-left, so it’s a plausible scenario.
Maybe we should have a freedom train to finance the immigration of persecuted European patriots. What the heck, include Aussies and Kiwis, too. Hong Kong and Tibet are full of people who hate Communists who masquerade as Democrats. Oceans are expensive things, so let’s help out distant patriots.
I think for freedom-loving people, the pandemic has made the choice brutally clear, so let’s use open borders to rebuild America as a refuge for truth and freedom.
Don’t count on the Democrats to help. They’ll probably close the bridges Trudeau just opened.
Good one, Diogenes 😊
Dig – Soon there will be thousands of Ukrainian’s seeking freedom from Marxist. They are educated, want to work and hate crime. They will certainly bring a positive affect to America. Let’s make sure they are welcomed as easily as those entering our southern border.
The Trudeau’s, father, mother and son have always had a dysfunctional relationship with Cuba.
Justin, inspite of his condemnation of Cuba has a sneaking affinity for its authoritarian ways.
Up to the Canadians to recover their democracy. So far,the signs aren’t good.
Can Canadians bank in the US? It is way to easy for the Canadian Govt to steal assets, and freeze accounts. It would be fun if $50billion in Canadian accounts ended up in the US, or other nation. Leftist have a huge blind spot about people responding to incentives.
Yes, they can. Many in fact do so.
Some errors. That was not the RCMP, it was Toronto Police mounted unit. The woman who was injured was on a sit down walker, and unable to get clear of the horses. The video shows what happened clearly, the horse walked right over her. There is another video of the police clubbing a woman they had subdued on the ground. That video is on my website, http://www.stoptheemergencyact.ca It’s quite brutal what was done.
And Trudeau? That little piece of feces needs to go.
Justin Trudeau, like his father, has never been a strong
ersupporter of free speech. Indeed, he has more often championed its limitations.🤔 I believe that is what he intended to say
Canada and USA are both getting too facist with Canada in second place for my Constitutional Republic taste.
So, has Trudeau morphed into Saruman?
The storied Royal Canadian Mounted Police looked like the Czar’s Cossacks yesterday.
Neither they nor Canada will recover reputations easily.
I wonder really if those with the power actually represent anything like a significant percentage of the people? Certainly wouldn’t have when I lived there and while I can see the Schwab effect am surprised at the few numbers on the side of the truckers who really wanted to sit down and talk. That still hasn’t been done and I am astonished that the general public finds this very new bad government behavior acceptable
Foggy: ” I am astonished that the general public finds this very new bad government behavior acceptable”
+++
So am I but I think it likely that the polls are controlled by the government. Given that, it is surprising that 100%, including the protesters, don’t heartily approve the government’s behavior.
If by an obscenely wild mistake the polls really are accurate then Canada is lost. Maybe it should break up. They have been on the verge of it for years. If I lived in Alberta I would want to be unshackled from the stink of Quebec.
First of all, your comment about the “stink of Quebec” is unacceptable, and fyi, I’m an English Canadian. Mind your effing manners, ok? Secondly, Canada has talked about breaking up for many years, but it isn’t going to happen. Ad mari usque ad mare.
Well, unacceptable or not, part of my family comes from BC and they had no love for Quebec just as I have no love for California.
All of the Canadian provinces are common law jurisdictions except for Quebec which inherited Civil Law from the French. Like it or not, I think that Civil Law is a bit more favorable to authoritarianism than common law wherever it resides. It hasn’t entirely shed its Imperial Roman roots. Our administrative state borders on totalitarian and it is structured more in the way of Civil Law than common law.
Like Scotland [also Civil Law by the way] Quebec has been holding the threat of separation over the heads of the rest of the country for years. Now many in England, and I suspect many in Canada, are getting fed up and ready to say “Do It!” Funny how Scotland [being Scots] adds up the debits and credits and so far has backed away from separation. They lose far more than they gain. Perhaps the same is in Quebec.
In any event, I am sure there are fine people in Quebec. We see a lot of them down here. But their rattling on about dissolution is a stink and it may ultimately penetrate the rest of Canada.
I find it shocking that totalitarianism has settled on Canada so quickly. Equally shocking that it is descending on the US so quickly too. I think China has bought the hearts and minds of many in the media and movies and business and government. That isn’t good. Not good at all.
@Young. First of all, your knowledge of Canadian civic issues is very poor. After the referendum in 1995, support for separation by Quebec has dropped and continues to drop. It is absolutely a non-issue except in very tiny corners of some Québecois university cafeterias.
Secondly, there are valid historical reasons for the difference of law in Quebec versus the rest of Canada. I’m not going to go into them, but they don’t create any issues.
Yes, both of our countries have problems, and if we don’t stop what’s happening, we will soon learn what it’s like to live like the Chinese, Cubans and other citizens of dictatorships do.
@Canuck
I admit what I know of Canada is limited and that enthusiasm for dissolution is well down but not dead. Do you think Trudeau’s outrageous behavior might resuscitate it?
Not an argument from me; a genuine question.
Young- this would probably drive up the issue of western separatism, which has been a problem for some time. Quebec separatism is pretty much dead, and this won’t affect it. However, as usual in these issues, this too shall pass
The first US states that wanted to secede, early on, were in New England. Ideas get around and come back in odd ways.
Canuck: “First of all, your knowledge of Canadian civic issues is very poor.”
++
Maybe on current civics but I am familiar with history, primarily through Parkman’s “Montcalm and Wolfe”.
Canada was French until taken by the British in the Seven Years War [our French and Indian War]. Some of the French remained in Canada or a part called Arcadia while others went to another French colony, Louisiana, where their name was corrupted into Cajun.
Both Louisiana and Quebec remained Civil Law jurisdictions while the remainder of both countries were common law.
Louisiana is too small to swing much weight here but it is a bit different with Quebec. It is not unusual for a country with a large area speaking a different language and with a different legal system and distinct history to separate along those fault lines.
You would have to learn a bit about common law and Civil law, maybe quite a bit, to begin to see how those legal systems exert subtle but constant pressures shaping the political thought of a country.
One rule in common law is that a statute contrary to a common law principle must be construed narrowly. In Civil Law no such restraining principle is in place because all law is presumed to derive from legislation. That is a rough statement with exceptions but in general that is the background theme, ignored until something makes it important. There are others.
If you get a chance, read Professor Hamburger’s superb “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”
Sir John Fortescue’s “In Praise of the Laws of England” can be rewarding though written at the time of The Wars of the Roses. He attempted in part to teach a youth expected to become king [never did] to understand that law constrained the king to a degree, that he must act within the law, something that did not impress Charles First or Trudeau.
Thinking on it, a rule for restraint probably doesn’t impress anyone in power but we expect them to pretend better.
Young, Upper Canada was English while Lower Canada was French.
So? I said Arcadia but should have spelled it Acadia. In any event, look at a map, Acadia is toward the south, lower Canada. You added nothing. Your point is pointless. You might as well have said that Louisiana is in the South.
Yeah, David, we all know that.
Young, I just correct your “Canada was French”. Upper and lower refer to the St. Lawrence River.
David, I see what you were getting at but, again, it wasn’t a correction.
You apparently missed the part where I said Canada was French BEFORE the Seven Years War. England had no claim to any of it north or south of the St. Lawrence before that. Indeed, the French led their Indian allies south to rob, capture and slaughter English colonists. Read about the attack on Deerfield during Queen Anne’s War.
Surely you remember that ALL of what was called Canada was French before Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham and England asserted sovereignty over the whole.
You are too anxious to impress with your corrections that sometimes are interesting and good and other times are simply goofy as in this case.
Instead of posturing with “corrections” why not use your considerable knowledge to add weight to discussions? Most would appreciate contributions like that.
Young, can a Canadian Provence just get up and leave Canada and go out on their own?
Sorry, I don’t know but I suspect it would be easier for them than it was for us when we tried it. They don’t have quite the same Constitutional arguments that we had. Probably easier in Canada. I wonder how many Canadians are asking themselves that same very interesting question about now
No, a Canadian province cannot simply march out of the country. There are constitutional issues involved, plus a vote of both the citizens of the province and of the parliament.
No, a Canadian province cannot just march out of the Federation. In addition to a vote by the people of the particular province, it also requires assent from parliament.
Thanks!
Canuck,
That process seems like it would be easier than what might be required for secession in the US. I haven’t looked at the issue closely, but I suspect that a state would have to secede with something like the same formality that bound the original colonies to the Constitution and national government in the first place. But even that could be in question because independent republics like Texas became states in an existing national government with more relaxed procedures. Could procedures be equally relaxed on leaving? I have no idea. But that many people are pondering these questions in Canada and the US does not bode well for the future stability of either country.
The unthinkable is being thought about.
Independent,
Provincial secession appears to be governed by the Clarity Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act