From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Trudeau government’s Attorney General and Justice Minister Arif Virani is still claiming that the 2022 Freedom Convoy posed a “risk of serious violence” that justified emergency measures, despite a federal court ruling to the contrary.  

Late last month, Virani testified at the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, arguing that the use of the Emergencies Act to end the 2022 Freedom Convoy protesting COVID mandates was justified as the protest posed a “serious risk” of becoming violent.   

“There was a risk of serious violence that was a crucial consideration supporting the decision to declare a public order emergency,” Virani said, according to information published February 29 by Blacklock’s Reporter.  

“The sole purpose of the temporary measures that were made was to bring about a swift, orderly and peaceful end to the circumstances,” he added. 

Despite past and ongoing claims by the Liberal government and mainstream media outlets, there has yet to be one verified instance of 2022 Freedom Convoy protesters being violent.  

Instead, videos of the protest against COVID regulations and vaccine mandates show Canadians from across the country gathering outside Parliament where they joined in dance parties, played street hockey, and even put up a bouncy castle for children.  

Indeed, the only acts of violence caught on video were carried out against the protesters after the Trudeau government directed police to end the protest via the Emergencies Act. One such video showed an elderly women being trampled by a police horse.  

Virani’s claim comes as Trudeau is appealing the recent Federal Court ruling which found that his use of the EA in 2022 to crush the Freedom Convoy was “not justified.” 

According to the ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. It cannot be invoked unless all other measures have been exhausted.      

Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that there were other means to end the protest, such as provisions in the Criminal Code, which the province of Alberta had argued at the time.      

The decision stated that, in addition to being an unnecessary measure, the EA had violated Canadians’ Charter rights, specifically infringing on freedom of thought, opinion, and expression.      

Notably, in the Federal Court of Appeal, where the case is now headed, 10 out of the 15 judges  were appointed by Trudeau.     

The Trudeau government has repeatedly justified their use of the EA, claiming that they were following the advice of confidential legal opinion.  

However, Liberals have refused to disclose the identity of their advisor based on “solicitor-client privilege,” even ignoring a 2022 committee order that it release the document.  

“Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” Virani claimed, refusing to disclose the identity of the legal opinion sought by the Trudeau government.

“It is a sacrosanct privilege that has existed for centuries in British common law and it is one this government firmly believes in,” he added.  

After New Democrat MP Matthew Green pressed Virani for an answer by asking, “You identify the Government of Canada as the client; who is the solicitor?” Virani bizarrely replied that he himself is the solicitor. 

Green followed up by clarifying that Virani is saying he, a member of the government, is effectively both solicitor and client, to which Virani replied, “I wear different hats at different times,” adding, “It is important for Canadians to understand the Minister of Justice constantly provides as chief law officer of the Crown advice to cabinet.”