Ignore distractions. Inquiries about the emergency law are only about whether the use of the law was required.


Ottawa has such a ruckus that truck drivers think they’re back. In a way, it is, because hearings are finally underway to trigger federal emergency legislation, and the noise-to-sensory ratio threatens to be worse than the original Go-Round. This is unfortunate because what is generally sought here, and in public debate, is truth and clarity, not shrieking.

There seems to have been a lot of testimony early on from people who believed they had been subjected to weeks of violent repression.Candidate for Mayor of Ottawa just testified She is said to have written a letter to the Prime Minister “begging for supplies.” I was told about them “

Apparently this person was the subject of hurtful remarks, a surprising turn of events in politics. However, violence other than self-defense is illegal, so did you report it to the police? did they happen? As long as hearsay does not justify the suspension of civil liberties, it matters.

On the contrary, with the following comments on Twitter, I take it for granted. Some say all could have been avoided had the prime minister yielded to the truckers’ demands. This is true, but worse than irrelevant.

First and foremost, Canadians have the right to protest peacefully and lawfully. But it should not dictate policy. It’s just one way of listening.

Second, Canadians have no right to violent protests that break the law. If crimes were committed, they should have been prevented or punished.

The third is where the story actually begins. From parking and noise violations to physical assault, other forms of law enforcement are non-existent, unavailable or inadequate when there is a violation of the law.

This is the only point that needs to be investigated and clarified at the hearing. And suggesting that a cowardly surrender would have sidestepped the need for law enforcement would have given authorities an out they didn’t deserve by suggesting the choice was mob rule or emergency law. give.

So don’t mind if the truck is noisy or smelly, if someone hears a phantom horn, or if the vaccination order is cruel and stupid. Only ask if permissions could have addressed it.

When you blow the whistle, the answer is an immediate, deafening yes. As soon as a private person sought an injunction and received an injunction, it was more or less stopped.

What about downtown core paralysis? I think it’s important to establish whether the agitated rhetoric you still hear about cities being terrorized, shut down, etc., has anything to do with reality. Serious violation of integrity or sanity. (Some journalists tweeted his Uber Eats receipts from downtown, but I’m not impressed with Ukrainian residents. During the “occupation,” he was six blocks from the Capitol. I was able to drive to the lecture within 10 minutes without delay.)

Suppose, however, that research proves that this phantom occupation actually existed. Next, Volume 2 of the story begins, as you have to determine why the local government didn’t let it stop. Did they lack legal authority? Couldn’t they exercise that power? Or did they use it and encounter so much resistance, passive or active, that they failed to achieve their goals?

In the first place, they clearly had authority. From refusal to move the vehicle to setting fire to a concealed firearm, despite slight cries about an uncooperative tow truck, nothing is claimed.

Third, the answer is also obvious. Ottawa police did not try to act aggressively.

So we come to this question: Did the federal government have to invoke the Emergency Act? Was it because local governments failed to act? Was it due to plausible evidence that acting without riots resulted in success, compliance and failure?Resistance?

Public interrogations, especially these days, have derailed in strange ways. This is because witnesses often seem more concerned with their feelings and animosity than with the truth. Were the law enforcement mechanisms established to maintain or restore peace, order and good government in Ottawa apparently non-existent, inaccessible or inadequate?

If so, it is justified to invoke the emergency law and whoever required it should be held criminally responsible in the convoy and in the authorities. If no, it should roll your head instead. The rest is or should be silent.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.

John Robson


John Robson is a documentary filmmaker, columnist for the National Post, contributing editor for the Dorchester Review, and Executive Director of Climate Discussion Nexus. His latest documentary is ‘The Environment: A True Story’.