Creating an Emergency Lane
by Collin Wynter
Canadians protesting the Trudeau Liberal government in Ottawa, as well as their own provincial governments respectively, has entered the third week of civil disobedience. The protest originally against mandated vaccinations for truckers was planned to begin on Saturday, January 29th, although some people arrived on the 28th. After beginning, the scope of objection to government policy has expanded to include concerns about political overreach and the demand to remove all covid 19 restrictions. The discontent seen in the public square after suffering through the past two years of nonsensical policies that seemed based on political and business maneuvers, rather than on science and public health, has taken its toll on the psyche. The people have had enough.
The vibe in Ottawa has slowly morphed into a party like atmosphere reminiscent of a music festival, something akin to Burning Man; the inclusion of a soup kitchen, cleaning the streets, organizing security watch, keeping an eye on one another- incase anyone becomes incensed- by ‘tapping them out’ (a suggestion to find a place to cool it). Subsidized media beholden to the government for their pay, such as the CBC, CTV and Toronto Star, however, would not stand for such joviality found among the truckers and friends of. Instead, they continuously try to smear the convoy as racists, far-right white supremacists, and violent thugs. This, of course, stems from the Prime Minister himself, who has built up the narrative of the ‘other’- the unvaccinated- for the public to demonize and direct their anger towards. Many seem oblivious that they may be living in a case of Stockholm syndrome.
Trudeau appears to have played the political game well, being able to escalate the public discourse to entreat the idea of enacting the Emergencies Act to deal with the protestors. One assumes then, that dialogue and amelioration is off the table, if ever it was even an option. There is little wonder, then, as to why he announced a “contact” with a person who tested positive for covid 19, which subsequently provided him with an opportunity to be absent from the public stage, to hide behind video camera when being questioned, to have private meetings while circumventing parliament, and a way to avoid meeting persons from the convoy. By removing himself from the conversation, along with the lack of action by Ottawa police to dissuade protestors from settling in, this has set the stage for the “occupation” and “siege” propaganda to be spewed forth by the corporate media into the zeitgeist.
(It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister of New Zealand also came into contact with someone who tested positive foe covid 19 at the same time as Trudeau. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, she is also having trouble with dissenters from her own globalist policies of removing civil liberties in favour of state control).
The current narrative Trudeau brackets his words in, involve a demand for the Emergencies Act to be imposed. The act is meant to protect:
“the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government…”
So it is the government’s duty to act when:
“the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency…”
To assist in setting the stage for Trudeau to be situated in a position that would appear publicly to be justified for enacting The Emergencies Act, Andrew Cohen, in The Globe and Mailanalogized the Ottawa protest to the October Crisis.
The October Crisis occurred in 1970 when the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) kidnapped Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte and British diplomat James Cross, which led to Laporte being murdered. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the current Prime Minster’s father, called upon the War Measures Act (the Emergencies Act replaced it in 1988). This was supported by the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau. Essentially, this removed civil liberties of Quebecers and granted the police far-reaching powers. 497 people were either arrested or detained during this incident. In October 2020, 50 years following the October Crisis, Yves-François Blanchet, the party and parliamentary leader of the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois, introduced a motion in the House of Commons demanding an official apology from the federal government, for invoking the War Measures Act, considered to be an egregious overreach.
Cohen compared the situation in Ottawa to a “hostage taking”, and further stated:
“For Justin Trudeau, the occupation of the national capital represents the greatest challenge to the legitimacy of the federal government in a generation. This is the October Crisis, revisited.”
Then followed shortly with this:
“The scene is part carnival, part encampment, part absurdist theatre. Across from Parliament, revellers have erected bouncy castles, which would normally bring a little levity to the most earnest city in Canada. Now the barricades of Bytown evoke the Paris Commune of 1871.”
Is this an instance of betting on the public’s short memory of history? Or a page out of 1984, wherein, bouncy castles and theatre have now become hostage situations?
In the National Post, Greg Taylor points out that the use of the Emergencies Act is not so simple. The focus on Section 3 that defines a national emergency affecting Canadians, does not supersede the provinces’ authority over control of their police and enforcement measures. Unless they declare of not being capable. A losing move for any premier to do that. Much better to remove appear to remove restrictions and allow Trudeau to appear as a villain. This is occurring in several provinces: Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec. While in British Columbia, premier John Horgan is doubling down on vaccine mandates for health care workers in the private sector.
Back to the Emergencies Act. More than one province may be required for a national emergency to be declared. Considering there are border blockades occurring in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, to varying degrees, this may be a lever for Trudeau to pull on during his first minsters meeting. But as just mentioned, there does not seem to be political will to go along with Trudeau. Taylor questions what the point of this would even be:
“The prime minister shouldn’t be declaring a national emergency if the only result will be to prohibit assemblies or impose curfews. Having declared a municipal emergency the mayor of Ottawa can do so, and the question is, why hasn’t he?”
As suggested, Ottawa may have been directed not to intervene.
There is also passing the buck, though, which seems to be a common occurrence in political machinations, exacerbated these past two years by believing the government can (or should attempt to) control a respiratory virus. Step by step, public officials have walked along a path that they may just be realizing now, as to where that leads. Claims are made that the provincial governments have been planning all along to remove restrictions. As we see with British Columbia and the suggestion of expanding the vaccine mandate for truckers to include inter-provincial travel, this is not wholly true. It is something to behold, though, in how quickly some provinces have been to distance themselves from covid 19 restriction policies they enacted with impunity.
The point is, if the provinces are doing so, the federal government must certainly follow suit. However, Trudeau appears to have other thoughts in mind. So, what we are seeing is a grass roots movement to demand the return of civil liberties in direct opposition to the Trudeau Liberals despotic attempts at expanding government control. Transparency into the intent behind the Emergencies Act is made evident.