References to “misinformation” in justifying Trudeau’s emergency law are very annoying.


Now that Congress has officially enforced an emergency law, the freedom of many citizens could be suspended in the name of dealing with the current emergency.

The right to peaceful meetings and associations has been suspended due to the ban on meetings in certain areas. Property rights have been suspended as supporters of the Freedom Convoy have seized bank accounts and vehicles. Police have suspended their safety rights as they can force people, such as tow truck drivers, to work under threat of imprisonment.

Hearing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his government has our rights under the suspicious justification of quelling the protest crisis in Ottawa, as if the suspension of all the rights mentioned above was not enough. You may want to further infringe.

The Trudeau Government may pursue our right to freedom of speech, expression and the press.

At a press conference shortly before the parliamentary vote on the emergency law, Trudeau detailed why he felt it was justified to enforce the law. Trudeau repeatedly referred to what he called “misinformation and disinformation” during the presser. If in fact such false information was part of the reason the law was needed, what is the law that can be used to combat obvious false information?

Nothing in the emergency law itself mentions false information, but it gives the government strong power to accept a fairly broad interpretation. The government can now force Canadian banks to seize citizens’ assets without a court order. The government does not need to justify anyone’s reason for seizing a citizen’s bank account, as no judicial oversight is required. They just order it.

The law states that an account can be seized if a person is suspected of supporting the protest. It does not specify that support must be in material or monetary form.

Can positive reports of protests be considered in favor of them? Can lending a person directions to the place of protest be considered to support it? The government has some serious discretion, and within such broad conditions within the scope of emergency law, they appear to be able to exercise that power in many ways.

Is the dissemination of alleged false information seen as a way to assist the convoy? Recently, the definition of false alarms has become quite subjective. The medical opinion of one doctor is called false information by another doctor. Quoting the wrong doctor can drive people out of major social media platforms. Can it now cause a person to violate emergency law? Disseminating views that are different from what is considered a medical consensus can force people to go out and protest.

Perhaps Trudeau’s focus is on the media. Legacy media members and politicians were furious when the New York Times dared to report that protesters had been arrested in a shootout in Ottawa.A CBCTV host tells the Times story “in a lie” Incredibly dangerous rhetoricCBC Radio Host Report to “BS.Trudeau’s best friend Gerald Butts was furious on Twitter when he spoke to the New York Times. Lose Canadian subscribers..

Jesse Brown and Canada Land Publish the story This included photos of people who were actually shot and arrested in Ottawa.Gerald Butts Dismissed the story The evidence in the photo was pretty clear, but as a “clickbait”.

The New York Times and South African Rand are both liberal outlets. The problem that established media and liberal supporters had with the story was not inaccurate, it was that the story was inconsistent with their own story.

Is it possible that countering the government’s explanation of the protest is declared false information and immediately subject to sanctions? Accuracy does not seem to be a defense.

Trudeau also suggested that “reflection” is needed to deal with incorrect information. What does that mean?

Liberal Bill C-11 is modeled for regulating and controlling broadcasts on the Internet. And can that law be used to calm the various voices of the independent media?

We have seen how government- and state-funded media behave violently when independent foreign media dare to counter the story of government events. Want to empower them to determine what the false information deserves sanctions and accusations?

With their enthusiasm to superficially suppress civil rights to deal with convoy protests, the government seems to be preparing to permanently control Canadians in the process. They want to regulate speech, coverage and broadcasting, and seem to use the current emergency as justification.

In these turbulent times, when our political leadership speaks, we need to read the line spacing carefully. They focus on our right to freedom of speech with the intention of accepting it.

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

Corey Morgan


Cory Morgan is a Calgary-based columnist and business owner.

Posted on