Connect with us

Justice

Conservative leadership candidate argues Tamara Lich a political prisoner

Published

12 minute read

Article submitted by Leslyn Lewis

A political prisoner is defined as “a person imprisoned for their political beliefs and actions.”

This definition begs the question of whether Trucker Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is a political prisoner.

In a previous letter, I outlined the fact that the first judge who detained Tamara was a former Liberal candidate, and the crown attorney who prosecuted Tamara had donated over $17,000 to the Liberal Party since 2013.

The fact that that we have to ask if Canada has political prisoners, speaks to the state of our declining democracy. But there seems to be no depth that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals will not sink to in order to control our thoughts, actions and even our democratic institutions.

We never imagined our government would invoke the Emergencies Act without exhausting existing options and without a request from law enforcement – but that happened.

We also never conceived that Canadians could be targeted for their political views, their property confiscated and their bank accounts frozen out of a political vendetta – but that too occurred in our democracy.

These events have sent tremors into the hearts of Canadians, some of whom have picked up and left this country out of fear that we are descending into a full-blown dictatorship. Some patriots I’ve met have even been put on a terrorist watch list just for attending the Freedom Convoy protest.

Tamara was recently released from jail after being arrested for allegedly breaching her bail conditions at a civil liberties awards gala event. Tamara, who is a 49-year-old Métis grandmother with no criminal record, spent 49 days in jail awaiting trial for charges stemming from her role as a Freedom Convoy organizer.

The Crown argued that she was a danger to the public and would likely reoffend, despite the fact that all of her charges were non-violent in nature.

In this extraordinary case, Tamara appeared before the court 5 times relating to bail conditions – [see the table summary of her case at the bottom of this email].

A Political Prisoner? Summary of the Evidence

Here are the facts leading up to Tamara’s latest arrest and bail hearings:

  • Tamara’s original bail conditions prohibited her from communicating with any convoy organizers EXCEPT in the presence of her lawyer or through her lawyer.
  • The alleged bail breach happened at a civil liberties awards gala where Tamara was receiving an award on June 16th, 2022; she was seen interacting with fellow convoy leader, Tom Marazzo. There were pictures and a video that showed her sitting at the same table as Mr. Marazzo and giving her acceptance speech. Upon returning to the table, she passes by Mr. Marazzo, touches his back and whispers something in his ear. The entire interaction lasted no more than 3 seconds. No breaches were related to the content of her speech.
  • An Ontario warrant for her arrest was issued on June 22nd. In an unorthodox move, on June 24th the Ottawa Crown Attorney extended the warrant to Canada-wide status so Tamara could be arrested in Alberta. However, still without a valid warrant that could be executed in Alberta, Tamara was still arrested by police in Medicine Hat on June 27th. The following day, the Crown in Alberta obtained a remand “to enable police in Ontario to get the warrant endorsed for arrest in Alberta. Two investigators in the homicide unit with the Ottawa Police Service, travelled to Alberta to execute the warrant once it had been endorsed for execution in Alberta” and they returned Tamara to Ontario.

In his ruling, Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman found the Justice of the Peace who had previously denied Tamara bail had “overstated” the impact of the contact made between Tamara and Marazzo at the gala.  Justice Goodman rejected the Justices of the Peace’s conclusion that “vulnerable victims of the February freedom trucker convoy protest” would continue to live in fear of a “re-occurrence of the protests…”.

Justice Goodman took issue with the Justice of the Peace’s reliance upon an irrational fear. He stated:

“It is not reasonable to draw the inference that an interaction of less than three seconds  in public at an awards ceremony as well as a group photograph and related, albeit brief  contact giving rise to the potential for a breach of terms would reasonably cause such  fear.”

Justice Goodman emphasized the presumption of innocence that is entrenched in our Charter and noted that it is important not confuse bail with being on trial: “…whether or not the applicant participated in any criminal conduct will ultimately fall to be decided by a trial court.”

Justice Goodman scolded the Justice of the Peace, he state that:

“I find that the Justice of the Peace’s reasons suffer from erroneous conclusions of the  relevant legal issues and he misapprehended the evidence when addressing the  secondary and tertiary ground concerns. As the Justice of the Peace’s decision is  clearly inappropriate, the detention order must be set aside.”

He also dismissed the concern that Tamara was a danger to the public – and noted that she abided by strict bail terms for 4 months, and she sought permission before attending the gala.

Justice Goodman echoed a previous bail decision by Justice Phillips stating:

The bail process is not the forum to address the myriad of opinion or issues arising from Ms. Lich’s or the Freedom Convoy’s disruption of the public peace or behaviour or  to advance a political or social position one way or the other. I also agree with Phillips J.  that no court would ever seek to control the possession or manifestation of political  views.” (emphasis added)

The issue of public fear was raised in every bail hearing and also by the Justice of the Peace that oversaw the warrant. Justice Goodman reminds us of the importance of balancing fears with the presumption of innocence and upholding the Charter:

“In my opinion, a reasonable member of the community, informed of the principles of  fundamental justice and Charter values and who appreciates the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to reasonable bail would not view Ms. Lich’s release with great shock and indignation.”

The Verdict

So, the answer is yes. Tamara does meet the definition of a political prisoner – she was imprisoned for her political beliefs and actions. In fact, two agents of the court had Liberal ties and did not recuse themselves from Tamara’s case. In addition, she was arrested in Alberta before a valid warrant in Alberta was issued. And, the grounds cited by the Justice of the Peace in denying her bail were clearly flawed.

Finally, two judges – Justice Phillips and Justice Goodman – made reference to the fact that people cannot be jailed because of their political beliefs. This was a clear sign that the Liberal political vendetta had infested our legal system, and it took two judges to call it out and bring balance back to the justice system and remind us all that “no court would ever seek to control the possession or manifestation of political views“.

Sadly, over the past two years under COVID-19, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have created an environment that has undermined our institutions for political gains. Under the guise of protecting people’s health and safety, we have seen the erosion of our constitutional rights, and seen our justice system, law enforcement, health system and media weaponized to silence political opponents.

This environment normalized charging and disciplining doctors with dissenting opinions, charging pastors who held outdoor drive-in services for their church members, freezing bank accounts and confiscating property of protesters, publicly shaming and disclosing the addresses of people who donated to a democratic movement, and numerous other public character assassinations. This Liberal government even barred duly elected Members of Parliament from taking their seat in the House of Commons in the name of public health even though they knew that the vaccine did not prevent transmission of covid.

These dictatorial acts have dangerously eroded the foundations of our democracy and the rule of law. The Liberals penchant for weaponizing institutions to silence their political opponents is undermining the very pillars that should be holding society together.

Tamara Lich is just one example of what happens when government uses its power to control Canadians, to inflame hate and division and to infest independent institutions with political operatives.

The only solution to cure the fragility of our democracy is to have citizens of all political stripes acknowledge the dangerous course that we are on, and to have courageous leaders involve checks and balances that will compel institutional actors to publicly declare conflicts as well as amend the Emergencies Act to require a minimum of 2/3 of parliament to invoke it.

I am ready to do this. Are you with me?

Sincerely,

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Brian Peckford: Supreme Court of Canada rules hockey players could train indoors but Christians could not pray together

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Peckford

” The Courts are not there to support Government action but to examine the evidence “

This is a scandalous verdict by the SCOC (6 to 3) on the Manitoba case brought by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms on behalf The Gateway Baptist Church challenging the closure of churches and restricting outdoor assembly.

The JCCF in their reaction to the decision said:

“The Winnipeg Jets could meet and train indoors with their extended crew, and summer Olympic competitors were allowed to train indoors,” reads the statement. “Outdoor gatherings were reduced to no more than five people, while at the same time hundreds of people could legally gather indoors at big box stores.”

The court can square any circle it seems in this country.

Take Section 1 of the Charter. The Court talks of reasonable but the section says ‘demonstrably justify within reasonable limits‘ and consistent with the rule of law ‘and in the  context of ‘a free and democratic society.‘

None of this was met in this case. The court has abused the plain meaning of Section I of the Charter and I can personally vouch for the intent of the Section ——and the Court violated that: nor was any of this done in the framework of the opening words of the Charter — ‘The Supremacy Of God—-and a Judaeo Christian God at that! The First Ministers who signed the Constitutional Document were all Christians.

The True North website says that the Court says that the Government does not have to meet a high bar in such cases.

One would think that the Court’s view would be just the opposite when people were subjected to Government propaganda, that people were dying from delayed surgeries because of lock downs and mandate and that this was known or ought to have been known and that the vaccines did not live up to the promise by Governments.

The Courts are not there to support Government action but to examine the evidence —-on health and constitutional grounds the evidence shows our highest court has failed the nation. 

A sad day for Canada—-our democracy has been diminished

The Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C. is the last living First Minister who helped craft the Canadian Charter of Rights

Continue Reading

International

Justice Jackson slammed for suggesting First Amendment is ‘hamstringing’ government

Published on

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Free speech advocates blasted Justice Jackson for defending government censorship efforts and criticizing conservative views about the First Amendment as ‘hamstringing the government.’

Comments made by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson during a hearing on Monday raised concerns among free speech advocates.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in Murthy v. Missouri, a case concerning collusion efforts between the Biden administration and Big Tech to censor speech about topics like the integrity of the 2020 election and the dangers of the COVID jabs.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time period,” Justice Jackson asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

She said further:

Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.

So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that. Because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.

“Interact” refers to Biden administration officials working closely with X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms to censor speech. In one example, a Biden administration official quickly got Instagram to delete a parody account of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The comments from Jackson drew criticism from conservatives and free speech advocates.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said the “hamstringing” nature of the First Amendment is what makes it valuable.

“It is hamstringing, and it’s supposed to. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, and the government exists to protect our rights,” Bailey told Fox News. “But here, the federal government is ignoring our First Amendment protections and weaponizing the federal government to silence our voices.

“Yes. The first amendment does limit the government. That’s the point of it,” Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, wrote on X.

Charlie Kirk, president of Turning Point USA, pointed out Jackson could not define what a woman is during her Supreme Court hearing.

Jackson also earlier suggested that a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” could justify restrictions on free speech, essentially adopting the arguments of the Biden administration.

“I mean, I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”

Many assertions regarding COVID-19 promoted by the Biden administration have since proven to be false, including claims that COVID shots and masks stop transmission of the virus and that COVID shots are not harmful and are beneficial for children.

Continue Reading

Trending

X