Trudeau’s Orwellian Attack On Canadian Truckers Declared Unconstitutional
Canada’s Federal Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 to punish protesting truckers was both unreasonable and unconstitutional.
“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,” wrote Justice Richard G. Mosley in his ruling.
The decision follows an application for judicial review requested by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and various other applicants who cried foul over the use of emergency measures to quell Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, which allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies deemed illegal by Trudeau’s government.
EMERGENCIES ACT INVOCATION DECLARED UNREASONABLE BY FEDERAL COURT!!!! pic.twitter.com/IGD6W44es2
— Christine Van Geyn (@cvangeyn) January 23, 2024
According to Mosley, Trudeau’s regulations had violated Charter rights – particularly against freedom of thought, opinion and expression. The Emergencies Act order was also found to infringe on the right to security against unreasonable search and seizure.
A huge tow truck just showed up, as did more cops.
— Mackenzie Gray (@Gray_Mackenzie) February 18, 2022
The cops that broke the windows of the RV are now searching it #cdnpolj #ottnews pic.twitter.com/jmgMQIMBSX
“It is declared that the decision to issue the Proclamation and the association Regulations and Order was unreasonable and ultra vires the Emergencies Act,” reads the ruling.
“It is declared that the decision 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.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation had initiated the judicial review, expressing concerns over what they deemed as a severe example of government overreach and violations of civil liberties during the pandemic.
“The Trudeau government’s use of this extraordinary law may be the most severe example of overreach and violations of civil liberties that was seen during the pandemic,” said Van Geyn at the time.
“The use of this powerful law was unauthorized because the legal threshold to use the law was not met. The Emergencies Act contains a last resort clause: it can only be used when there is a national emergency and there are no other laws at the federal, provincial and/or municipal levels which can address the situation. Parliament cannot use the Emergencies Act as a tool of convenience, as it did in this case.” –TNC.news
The government plans to appeal the ruling.
UPDATE – Deputy PM says Trudeau’s government will appeal the federal court’s ruling because they believe invoking the Emergencies Act was “right” and “necessary” at the time.pic.twitter.com/V2MGQWTMF4
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 23, 2024
Things are going great for Trudeau, eh?
❗??? – “F*ck Trudeau” chants break out at UFC 297.@JustinTrudeau ??♂️ pic.twitter.com/unfeRlD1gZ
— ??The Informant (@theinformantofc) January 21, 2024
Read the entire ruling below:
Supreme Court Decision Provokes Civil War In Texas
On a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court granted an emergency request by the Biden administration, arguing that Texas was preventing agents from carrying out their duties.
In response, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said that he will defend Texas constitutional authority to secure the southern border and that Texas will prevent the Biden administration from removing property belonging to the State of Texas.
Come and Take it is being put to the test.
The Republic is being divided by an Executive Branch of the United States beholden to George Soros, the WEF, and the United Nations plan to destroy the United States from within.
Watch: Biden Mouthpieces Defend Removing Texas’ Razor Wire Blocking Illegal Invasion
Biden admin propagandists launched into full-spin mode Tuesday defending SCOTUS’ decision to allow the US Border Patrol to remove razor wire installed by Texas to prevent illegal crossings.
Speaking to reporters at a press briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre asserted the Biden admin was “glad” SCOTUS revoked Texas’ right to defend its own borders, ridiculously claiming the razor wire prevented border agents from being able to “enforce laws.”
“And it got in the way, and what Texas was doing, the governor was doing was actually ineffective,” Jean-Pierre claimed.
WH press sec says she’s “glad” the “ineffective” razor wire at the Southern border was removed because it got “in the way”
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) January 23, 2024
pic.twitter.com/gNEy3S6y7J
Tensions flared during the presser as Jean-Pierre also took personal shots at Fox News reporter Peter Doocy.
KJP: If you look at what he’s done these past 3 years… bipartisan infrastructure deal, many presidents before like your favorite president—
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 22, 2024
Doocy: Who’s my favorite president?
KJP: Why don’t we let the American people guess pic.twitter.com/7gDeR0llGq
Elsewhere in Tuesday’s press conference, Doocy held National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby’s feet to the fire, specifically asking, “Does razor wire work?”
Doocy: Does razor wire work to secure the border?
Kirby: “I don’t think so and that’s why we asked for it to be removed” pic.twitter.com/7v4AHmKc6p— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) January 23, 2024
Evading the binary question, Kirby interestingly responded the razor wire doesn’t “work” to help Border Patrol agents “process people that are trying to get across the border.”
As for the question of whether the razor wire works, Texas Gov. Abbott (R) argued, “Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings Biden encourages.”
This is not over.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 22, 2024
Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings Biden encourages.
I will continue to defend Texas’ constitutional authority to secure the border and prevent the Biden Admin from destroying our property.https://t.co/pV7Cuq57d1
Moreover, Texas argued in court the razor wire serves the public interest by protecting private and state property, blocks fentanyl smuggling and human trafficking, as well as helps “minimize the risks to people, both U.S. citizens and migrants, of drowning while making perilous journeys to and through illegal points of entry.”
The Biden admin argued the razor wire in Eagle Pass, Texas, “effectively prevented … from monitoring the border to determine whether a migrant requires the emergency aid that the court of appeals expressly excepted from the injunction,” according to SCOTUS blog, after three migrants reportedly drowned in the area.
It’s clear the Biden admin’s gaslighting specialists do not have Americans’ best interests in mind.
Watch the full press briefing below:
Bombshell: DHS Knew Mass Mail Voting Risks in 2020 But Censored Criticisms as ‘Disinformation’, Docs Show
The Department of Homeland Security was aware of the mass mail-in voting risks ahead of the 2020 election but censored online criticism of the policy anyway, documents reveal.
Documents obtained through a lawsuit by America First Legal (AFL) show the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the DHS’s censorship arm, outlined numerous significant voter fraud risks in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election.
/1?LITIGATION BOMBSHELL — we sued the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the censorship arm of DHS.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
Our lawsuit unearthed new docs showing that the deep state knew the risks of mass mail voting in 2020 but censored these criticisms as “disinformation.”
THREAD: pic.twitter.com/iJ8SNxil82
The CISA document lays out six specific election fraud risks:
- 1. “Implementation of mail-in voting infrastructure and processes within a compressed timeline may also introduce new risk.”
- 2. “For mail-in voting, some of the risk under the control of election officials during in-person voting shifts to outside entities, such as ballot printers, mail processing facilities, and the United States Postal Service.”
- 3. “Integrity attacks on voter registration data and systems represent a comparatively higher risk in a mail-in voting environment when compared to an in-person voting environment.”
- 4. “The outbound and inbound processing of mail-in ballots introduces additional infrastructure and technology, increasing potential scalability of cyber attacks.”
- 5. “Inbound mail-in ballot processes and tabulation take longer than in-person processing, causing tabulation of results to occur more slowly and resulting in more ballots to tabulate following election night.”
- 6. “Disinformation risk to mail-in voting infrastructure and processes is similar to that of in-person voting while utilizing different content. Threat actors may leverage limited understanding regarding mail-in voting processes to mislead and confuse the public.”
Officials cited COVID-19 as justification for implementing mail-in ballots across the country.
However, despite CISA concluding that in-person voting did NOT increase the spread of COVID-19, and outlining the risks posed by the major mass mail-in ballot policy change, the agency continued to support it.
/2 By September 2020, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) was aware that the evidence established that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID-19.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
CISA was also aware that mass “vote-by-mail” schemes posed “major challenges,” including “the process… pic.twitter.com/An0nuZVb4T
And though CISA shared its findings with the mainstream media, outlets like the Washington Post ignored them and continued attacking mail-in ballot concerns.
/7 Yet, The Washington Post and other similar outlets covered up the evidence and focused on CISA’s “independence from Trump” and CISA Director Chris Kreb’s “statements about the security of mail-in ballots” that “directly contradict” Trump. pic.twitter.com/igkFL86qGS
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
Additionally, CISA’s main focus appeared to be controlling the narrative pertaining to mail-in ballots, flagging posts by former President Donald Trump and other conservative commentators criticizing the risky new policy, and forming the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans’ speech related to mail-in voting.
/19 CISA formed the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans’ speech, as @JudiciaryGOP and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government @Weaponization has found.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
Director Krebs testified to Congress that “narratives are narratives,” so… pic.twitter.com/DzcMjKzwvh
“In the EIP’s report touting the scope of its efforts, the EIP found that ‘[i]n the lead-up to the 2020 election, misinformation centered on mail-in voting.’ Accordingly, EIP collaborators—including CISA—submitted ‘tickets’ to flag social media posts relating to mail-in voting,” America First Legal noted.
/20 According to congressional investigators, CISA targeted entire “narratives” for censorship. pic.twitter.com/uNPdmH9l9Q
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
In sum, according to AFL:
- CISA knew that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID.
- CISA knew mail-in voting was less secure.
- CISA nevertheless supported policy changes to encourage unprecedented widespread mail-in voting.
- CISA formed the EIP to censor narratives relating to mail-in voting.
- CISA broadly monitored social media to detect unapproved “narratives” relating to mail-in voting and to confirm that platforms were adequately censoring them.
/22 The evidence is that:
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) January 22, 2024
?CISA knew that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID.
?CISA knew mail-in voting was less secure.
?CISA nevertheless supported policy changes to encourage unprecedented widespread mail-in voting.
?CISA formed the EIP to censor…
These damning revelations show the federal government used COVID-19 as an excuse to introduce what it knew to be risky and unsecured mail-in voting practices then censored anyone who criticized the radical new policy.
Does anybody still believe Joe Biden rightfully won the 2020 election with 81 million votes?
Democrats’ ‘Secret Plan’ to Replace Biden With Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey Exposed
The Democrats are planning to replace ailing and failing Biden/Harris ticket with the younger and more popular Michelle Obama as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, according to a new plan revealed by the New York Post’s […]
The post Democrats’ ‘Secret Plan’ to Replace Biden With Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey Exposed appeared first on The People’s Voice.
Trump Believes Joe Biden Will Drop Out of 2024 Presidential Race
Donald Trump has said that he thinks Joe Biden will drop out of the presidential race The former president made his comments while talking to Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum on Monday. Before he went […]
The post Trump Believes Joe Biden Will Drop Out of 2024 Presidential Race appeared first on The People’s Voice.