From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

It is difficult not to conclude that he was publicly building the case for what Trudeau would ultimately do: freeze bank accounts, invoke the Emergencies Act, and launch a crackdown. Ironically, a federal justice would conclude, based on a mountain of evidence, that the government crackdown Carney appeared to be advocating did precisely what he accused the convoy protesters of doing: violating the fundamental rights of Canadians.

The Freedom Convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 29, 2022. Two weeks later, on February 14, Justin Trudeau declared the Emergencies Act (which replaced the War Measures Act in 1988); his Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, insisted that law enforcement had requested the measure. Police from all over the country began arriving in Ottawa, and on February 18, they were sent to clear the streets — including a contingent on horseback. I was in Ottawa for the crackdown, and some of the scenes were surreal.

On January 23, 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was both “unreasonable” and a violation of the rights of Canadians as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He found that the invocation of the act lacked “justification, transparency, and intelligibility,” infringed on freedom of expression, and violated protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” due to the freezing of bank accounts and suppression of protests.

The Trudeau government is appealing this decision, insisting — against all evidence — that the Emergencies Act was essential to restoring peace despite the fact that there was not a single incident of documented violence during the Freedom Convoy. Further to that, Royal Canadian Mounted Police commissioner Brenda Lucki directly contradicted the claims made by Mendicino, stating that law enforcement had not requested the Emergencies Act, a key aspect of the government’s justification for invocation. “There was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act,” Lucki told the Public Order Emergency Commission bluntly.

Interestingly, one of the early advocates of a crackdown on the Freedom Convoy was … now-Prime Minister Mark Carney. On February 7, a mere week into the protests, Carney penned a furious editorial in the Globe and Mail titled “This is sedition—and it’s time to put an end to it in Ottawa.” He claimed that people were being “terrorized”; that women were “fleeing abuse”; he stated, bluntly, “This is sedition. That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means ‘incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.’”

Carney went further, writing that although the protest might have been initially peaceful, “by now anyone sending money to the convoy should be in no doubt: You are funding sedition,” and called on the government to “identify those who are prolonging this manufactured crisis and punish them to the full extent of the law.” He opined that donating to the Freedom Convoy amounted to supporting an insurrection, concluding:

It’s time to end the sedition in Ottawa by enforcing the law and following the money … Decisive action must be taken to protect Canadians and our democracy. Our Constitution is based on peace, order and good government. We must live up to this founding principle in order to protect all our freedoms.”

Carney was already a key figure in Trudeau’s circle at this point, and it is difficult not to conclude that he was publicly building the case for what Trudeau would ultimately do: freeze bank accounts, invoke the Emergencies Act, and launch a crackdown. Ironically, a federal justice would conclude, based on a mountain of evidence, that the government crackdown Carney appeared to be advocating did precisely what he accused the convoy protesters of doing: violating the fundamental rights of Canadians.

Carney has kept understandably mum on all this since his leadership race and subsequent victory, although presumably he will be continuing the Trudeau government’s ongoing appeal to overturn the federal ruling that they violated the rights of Canadians. Indeed, for his Chief of Staff, Carney chose … Marco Mendicino, the very cabinet minister who appears to have blatantly lied about law enforcement requesting the Emergencies Act. Ironically, Carney also selected Chrystia Freeland, the minister directly responsible for freezing (at minimum) the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians, as Minister of Transport.

To state that the Trudeau government violated the fundamental rights of Canadians in cracking down on protesters often rendered desperate by their vaccine mandate policies — which they cynically used as a wedge issue in a (failed) attempted to secure a second majority government — is not a right-wing conspiracy theory. It is the considered opinion of a federal judge that, to date, has not been overturned. Carney appears to be cut from precisely the same cloth — and has surrounded himself with those who carried out the crackdown.

---

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

 By John Leake

Briefing from former head of SIS and other top security analysts stated unequivocally that pandemic originated at WIV, refuted fraudulent “Proximal Origins” paper by Andersen et al.

Fellow Substack author Michael Schellenberger just shared an intelligence briefing dated 27 March 2020 from Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British intelligence, and other ranking security analysts to Prime Minister Johnson. The following is a reproduction of the first page.

In other words, Sir Richard and his team expressly told Prime Minister Boris Johnson on March 27, 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 came out of the WIV.

Note that the authors state that the Nature Medicine paper published by Andersen et al. (“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”) is incorrect and that:

the scale and nature of its errors and its prime source (Zhou et al) raise important further non-virological questions, including of geo-strategic and domestic security, that can be addressed separately in slower time.

We judge therefore, that the PRC [People’s Republic of China] is conducting information operation to embed the natural causation narrative, and, by misdirection, and to conceal the true origin and responsibility.

We know from Andersen et al.’s private e-mail correspondence with Anthony Fauci in late February 2020 that they knew that SARS-CoV-2 was not of natural origin.

This raises an extremely pressing question: Were Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, Robert F. Garry, and Anthony Fauci working for the PRC?

Sir Richard Dearlove and his colleagues raise this suspicion, because they must have known that Andersen et al. weren’t simply hoodwinked by Chinese virologists Zhou et al.

We know that Peter Daszak of EcoHealth and Professor Ralph Baric were collaborating with Chinese scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID was supporting their research as well.

Setting aside questions about the legality of their research, shouldn’t all of these people be arrested and tried for the fraudulent concealment of information of vital public interest?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson chose to conceal from the British public the reality disclosed in this memo. Does British law make him immune from liability for concealing this matter of vital public interest from the British people? Note that Johnson also took decisive action to sabotage peace talks between Ukraine and Russian in Turkey in March 2022.

Should the British people trust Johnson’s representations about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia—representations that have been endorsed by his successor, Keir Starmer? For all the British people know, Johnson received security briefings about this conflict that contradict what he has told them about the war.

Then there’s the abominable mainstream media in the U.S. and Britain that characterized everyone who pointed out the obvious indications of the lab origin as “conspiracy theorists.”

The New York Times just published an ass-covering Opinion titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives”—as though the Times editors someone managed to remain ignorant about the mountain of evidence of this until now.

The disclosure of this British intelligence memo comes on the heels of almost identical disclosures about the German government of Angela Merkel. As investigative journalist Michael Nevradakis just reported in the CHD Defender:

Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND, determined with 80%-95% certainty in 2020 that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic originated with a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China — but successive governments kept the information “under lock and key,” according to a German investigative report.

The report, published jointly on Wednesday by Die Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung, was the result of an 18-month investigation.

The investigation found that in 2020, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel commissioned a BND operation code-named “Project Saaremaa” that targeted Chinese agencies and research institutions.

When the BND’s investigation concluded that a Wuhan lab leak was the most likely source of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Merkel government prohibited the spy agency from releasing its results to the public.

When Mr. Nevradakis asked me what I thought about the German disclosure, I told him the following:

The revelation that German intelligence knew that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab, and was not of natural origin, is no surprise, given the vast amount of evidence that the pathogen was not zoonotic. It’s also not surprising that the Merkel government decided to conceal the spy agency’s findings.

The BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) has long worked very closely with the CIA, and the Merkel government consistently complied with Washington’s directives. Concealment of the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with the German government’s concealment of Paul Ehrlich Institute’s assessments about many elements of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For over three years, Dr. Peter McCullough and I have expressed our conviction that the cover-up of the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the greatest organized crime in history. The latest revelations about the BND and the Merkel government confirm our long held suspicions.

For a full copy of the March 27, 2020 Security Briefing to Prime Minister Johnson, click HERE.

Share