When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pontificated to the world that, “Canada will… stand against authoritarianism”, it was astonishing that he managed to keep a straight face.
After all, this was the same PM who, barely a week earlier, was not just arresting and detaining hundreds of Canadian citizens without charge, but freezing their bank accounts. Using a shady computer hacker, his government obtained and leaked to the press the personal details of thousands of Canadians who’d perfectly legally donated to a cause. Canadian government police bragged and laughed when their horses trampled protesters, including a First Nations woman on a mobility scooter.
Such astonishing authoritarianism from a nation famous for its easy-going politeness shocked many. Not least, it seems, Canada’s own Parliament.
On Monday, a joint committee of Canada’s Parliament officially launched an inquiry into the Trudeau government’s actions against the Freedom Convoy civil liberties protesters.
The “unprecedented” inquiry will look into allegations that the Trudeau government violated protesters’ Charter rights.
The inquiry committee will span the political spectrum, with appointees from Trudeau’s governing Liberal Party as well as the opposition Conservative Party, as well as an appointee from the green-left New Democrats.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already spoken publicly about the issue. In his testimony, Trudeau denied any wrongdoing on the part of his government and insisted that all decisions were made in accordance with the law. He also defended his decision to deploy police forces against the protesters, arguing that it was necessary to maintain public order.
Even if the actions were conducted within the letter of the law, under the Emergencies Act, there is widespread concern that invoking the Act was an unjustified overreach.
The Emergencies Act is a piece of legislation that was passed in 1988. It gives the federal government emergency powers in times of crisis. This can include things like freezing bank accounts, deploying the national police force, and other measures.
Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to give himself these unprecedented powers. The RCMP were deployed to remove protesters, and some bank accounts were frozen without a court order.
There has been much criticism of Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act in this case. Many feel that it is an abuse of power, and that it should only be used in cases of true emergency, not to shut down speech.
Whatever the inconvenience to the citizens of Ottawa, and no matter how many “isms” Trudeau hysterically invoked, the protest was undeniably peaceful. The resort to the Emergencies Act in the case of the Truckers is in stark contrast to Trudeau’s tacit endorsement of a wave of church burnings last year, following false claims about a “mass grave” of First Nations children at a former orphanage.
Even First Nations representatives are concerned about the authoritarian turn Canada has taken.
In another separate committee, MPs were warned by Assembly of First Nations National Chief RoseAnne Archibald that the unprecedented decision to invoke the Emergencies Act had had broad-spectrum consequences […]
“I am concerned and did express that concern very immediately with Minister Miller when he called me that I was concerned about the long-term implications of this.”
As a former activist who had been involved in many protests, Archibald understood the threat to free speech.
“My concern is the act is a tool and the tool itself can actually name and can actually place labels upon people,” Archibald said.
“The implications of the Emergencies Act are far and wide and that is why I am standing before you. I am a former activist myself, and I have been involved in civil actions and charged.”
Reclaim the Net
Archibald can see clearly what too many, on the left especially, refuse to: that trampling the free speech of people you don’t like inevitably creates a rod for your own backs. Free speech starts with defending the free speech of people you despise.