We have been discussing the rapid decline of free speech protections in Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A vivid example of the increasing authoritarian approach was evident this week with the arrest of David Menzies, a reporter for Canada’s conservative Rebel News Network. Menzies was attempting to interview Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland when her security clearly manufactured a criminal charge in front of cameras.
Menzies was attempting to ask Freeland about Canada’s refusal to label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC) as a terrorist organization. Freeland continues to walk as Menzies attempts get an answer by walking backwards. As he stays with Freeland, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) stands in his way and the result is a slight bump. The officer then immediately carries out an arrest with an eventual charge that Menzies assaulted him.
Trudeau has had a long running feud with Rebel News. Last week, we discussed the irony of how a Russian dissident was denied Canadian citizenship due to a conviction in Russia for speaking against the Ukrainian war (from Canada). Since Canada has the same criminalization of speech laws, Maria Kartasheva was pulled from her ceremony pending further investigation into whether she is a criminal practitioner of free speech.
The arrest of Menzies raises the same comparison to the approach of governments like Putin’s to critics. Note in the video below how the officer positions himself directly in the path of Menzies as he walks back with his back to the officer.
You can judge for yourself on what countries come to mind:
Aside from Canadian police state fascism following closely in the footsteps of American police state fascism after watching that video clip, this should be interesting and/or entertaining when it arrives at trial.
First, one of the elements of the charge of Assault PO is that the person charged with the crime KNEW the PO was a PO, AND in the performance of his duty, when the alleged assault occurred. In the video, the reporter is backing up and walking sideways with all his attention on asking the Deputy Prime Minister a question. Nothing in that video suggests he was even aware that anyone, police or not, was standing in his path as he moved alongside her sideways and backwards as she walked straight forward. The police officer, meanwhile, was not in uniform as the others that were there within a second were – but supposedly the reporter arrested somehow knew he was both a police officer AND doing something in performance of his duties.
Would be interesting to see at trial how the Crown will try to prove that necessary element of the offense to get a conviction.
Second, (again watching the video) the police officer could have prevented this ‘assault’ by simply stepping out of the way, instead of into the way. Better video from nearby video cameras may show this PO moved INTO the way of the walking journalist that didn’t even know he was there. This PO could have also prevented the ‘assault’ by putting his arm out to stop the journalist from moving into him.
In the court of the ridiculous that is reality today, every person in a crowd at a sporting event, crowd, etc that a PO accidentally bumps into can lay a complaint of assault and excessive force – what duty was the police officer engaged in fulfilling while bumping into them in a crowd or while walking.
“further investigation into whether she is a criminal practitioner of free speech.”
Well that doesn’t sound too totalitarian , does it?
We Americans tend to ignore Canadian affairs. (Al Capone said he did not know what street Canada was on.) But Canada has changed profoundly since WWII. Before 1982, Canadians considered themselves to be subjects of the British crown. Prominent Canadians sent their children to England for schooling. The Canadian conservative party spoke in the rhetorical accents of the British Tory party, and many Cadadians proudly considered themselves to be descendents of the Tories who opposed American independence. But in 1982 Canada decided to cast away the historic control of the British crown and establish their own constitutional institutions, including a vague “charter of rights” and a politically-appointed Supreme Court charged with “enforcing” the charter of rights. In other words, they flipped from following the English tradition-of revering prescriptive institutions and practices to a French (and American) tradition of proclaiming broad abstract principles and then allowing them to be applied in any way the men and women on the Supreme Court would decide that they should be applied. This will not end well. You do not want to give up a solid house, gradually built by your forebears over generations, in exchange for a balloon full of hot air.
edwardmahl, rewriting Canadian history like a Democrat writing the ‘Russia Dossier’ sez: Before 1982, Canadians considered themselves to be subjects of the British crown. Prominent Canadians sent their children to England for schooling. The Canadian conservative party spoke in the rhetorical accents of the British Tory party, and many Cadadians proudly considered themselves to be descendents of the Tories who opposed American independence. But in 1982 Canada decided to cast away the historic control of the British crown
First, while many Americans are obsessed with the ‘subjects’ bit, very few Canadians in my 70 year lifetime of living a 30 minute drive from the USA/Canada border ever considered themselves ‘subjects’ of England. That may be because no Canadian since 1867 has ever seen a single instance of Great Britain – or the Crown – have any say whatsoever in Canadian politics, legislation, etc. I have soldiered with, drank with, competed with, fished with, hunted with, and otherwise hung out with Canadians… some of them being relatives living on the other side of the border. I have yet to hear a single one refer to themselves as a British ‘subject’.
Americans up on their soapboxes about ‘subjects’ are the ones that carry on about that. Not Canadians, nor any Canadian government in my lifetime talk about Canadians being ‘subjects of the Crown’.
Second, the descendants of the Tories who opposed American Independence are in two small Canadian provinces in the east, with a fraction of Canada’s population. Claiming that they comprise ‘many’ Canadians is like saying many Americans are proud descendants of French Canadians deported by the British during Le Grand Dérangement – what we now call Cajuns.
Third, to re-emphasize, the British crown has had NO control over Canadian political decisions, policy, lawmaking, elections, etc since 1867 when the country of Canada came into being. So claiming it existed until 1982 when Canadians supposedly ‘cast away the historical control of the British crown is just pure BS that would make a Lyin’ Biden proud.
Fourth, to wrap up this ‘teachable moment’, the Divine Right And Rule Of Kings ended in the Glorious Revolution in 1867, when the Brits chopped off the head of the first King Charles for ignoring the British Parliament and attempting to replace Parliament with the rule and orders of King Charles. No English monarch, at any time since then, in either Great Britain or in Canada, has ever attempted to stick their oar in the water to control any aspect of government rule in any country. The British Crown serves in the ceremonial position as Head Of State – exactly what the monarchy agreed to do as their function when they were given that alternative back in the 1600’s. When we gained our sovereignty and decided not to have monarchs, we filled that position with what we call the Secretary Of State.
What IS correct in that comment is that when Trudeau The First foisted the joke of a Canadian Constitution on Canadians in 1982, their SCC foisted on them what the court at the time termed ‘a living, breathing constitution’ where Canadian Supreme Court Justices get to decide what THEIR powers of governance without elections are – just as SCOTUS did here in the USA starting with Marbury v. Madison.
Canadians follow our lead more often than not – often not in ways that aren’t for their own good.
O T (Ray Epps)
I assume that everyone has seen that Ray Epps, after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, was sentenced to (get ready): one year of probation with a bit of “community service” (probably spying on the Trump campaign). Talk about “controlled demolition”. This was a nice fix. Hopefully, J T will have a comment.