• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

Eaglelord17 said:
She claims to have already overthrown the government of Canada, has usurped the title of Queen of Canada (which is also fraud), and is threatening to execute people who do not comply with her. I don’t know what more of a case for sedition you would need.

I fail to see how a charter challenge would cause anything to be struck down. Governments have the right to retain their sovereignty, this law specifically protects that.
Click to expand...
You would think so but given our court system..
Had a lawyer once tell me that under the C.C. it was virtually impossible to get a treason conviction and he thought on any appeal there was a pretty good chance that there was a 50/50 chance that that those passages concerned with treason could be struck down.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
She claims to have already overthrown the government of Canada, has usurped the title of Queen of Canada (which is also fraud), and is threatening to execute people who do not comply with her. I don’t know what more of a case for sedition you would need.

I fail to see how a charter challenge would cause anything to be struck down. Governments have the right to retain their sovereignty, this law specifically protects that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Only a court ruling away from knowing for sure. No doubt a Charter 2(b) (Freedom of Expression) challenge would be mounted. I can claim to be God, or a Giraffe. Her claim of overthrowing the government is fairly evidently wrong, but hers to say.

If she has made specific threats against individuals, then that is a problem. Broad statements don't meet the criminal code threshold.

 
lenaitch said:
Perhaps. Only a court ruling away from knowing for sure. No doubt a Charter 2(b) (Freedom of Expression) challenge would be mounted. I can claim to be God, or a Giraffe. Her claim of overthrowing the government is fairly evidently wrong, but hers to say.

If she has made specific threats against individuals, then that is a problem. Broad statements don't meet the criminal code threshold.

Click to expand...

Looking at Treason (and setting aside High Treason) in the Crim Code, there are basically two paths to it:

1. Use for/violence to try to overthrow the government.

2. Communicate military/scientific information to another state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defense of Canada.

You’d need to be more than a nut job cult to hit that threshold… There’s need to be serious, overt violent acts with the demonstrable intent to overthrow, and aimed at that objective. That would be a big lift.

I think it would be more likely to see a treason charge in circumstances similar to what might attract a charge under ss.16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act. Hypothetically they probably could have hit Jeffrey Delisle with a treason charge.
 
GK .Dundas said:
You would think so but given our court system..
Had a lawyer once tell me that under the C.C. it was virtually impossible to get a treason conviction and he thought on any appeal there was a pretty good chance that there was a 50/50 chance that that those passages concerned with treason could be struck down.
Click to expand...

Meh! I think your lawyer friend is just being a bit too cautious.

For treason results under common law see:

510px-The_execution_of_Guy_Fawkes%27_%28Guy_Fawkes%29_by_Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg

Engraving of conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot being hanged, drawn and quartered in London.
Click to expand...

:giggle:
 

I still think she could be charged with sedition as per the CC.​

​

Sedition​

Marginal note:Seditious words

  • 59 (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious libel
    (2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious conspiracy
    (3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious intention
    (4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
    • (a) teaches or advocates, or
    • (b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
    • the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 60
Marginal note:Exception

60 Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,

  • (a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;
  • (b) to point out errors or defects in
    • (i) the government or constitution of Canada or a province,
    • (ii) Parliament or the legislature of a province, or
    • (iii) the administration of justice in Canada;
  • (c) to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter of government in Canada; or
  • (d) to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.
 
Eaglelord17 said:

I still think she could be charged with sedition as per the CC.​

​

Sedition​

Marginal note:Seditious words

  • 59 (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious libel
    (2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious conspiracy
    (3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious intention
    (4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
    • (a) teaches or advocates, or
    • (b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
    • the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 60
Marginal note:Exception

60 Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,

  • (a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;
  • (b) to point out errors or defects in
    • (i) the government or constitution of Canada or a province,
    • (ii) Parliament or the legislature of a province, or
    • (iii) the administration of justice in Canada;
  • (c) to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter of government in Canada; or
  • (d) to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.
Click to expand...

Could, perhaps. Sedition (the offense is found as a.61 of the Crim Code) has never been tested against the Charter, specifically the right to free expression. However, in general terms it seems to fit. In the absence of modern Canadian case law we do have ample recent case law out of the US to establish the modern relevance of the concept, although this Canadian cult lacks the tangible action targeting state authorities or processes to get a real equivalence.

But- could police articulate to a court that they have reasonable grounds to believe Sedition is being committed, as an underlying offense for judicial authorizations like search warrants (eg seize and search electronic devices), transmission data recorders, or perhaps even an interception of private communications? Yeah, good chance they could.
 
Eaglelord17 said:

I still think she could be charged with sedition as per the CC.​

​

Sedition​

Marginal note:Seditious words

  • 59 (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious libel
    (2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious conspiracy
    (3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.
  • Marginal note:Seditious intention
    (4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
    • (a) teaches or advocates, or
    • (b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
    • the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 60
Marginal note:Exception

60 Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,

  • (a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;
  • (b) to point out errors or defects in
    • (i) the government or constitution of Canada or a province,
    • (ii) Parliament or the legislature of a province, or
    • (iii) the administration of justice in Canada;
  • (c) to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter of government in Canada; or
  • (d) to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.
Click to expand...
You're suggesting she had intent to use force to accomplish a governmental change... what exactly are you basing this off of? Do you have any evidence from the news or this trial that you can point to, or is it just your opinion that it is so?... was it by saying "hold the line", like Toto did in one of his songs?

The criminal trial for mischief and counselling mischief hasn't seen the Crown put forth much evidence for Tamara Lich specifically. It has seen testimony from Ottawa police officers that they directed the convoy vehicles where to park, and what routes to take though.
 
winds_13 said:
You're suggesting she had intent to use force to accomplish a governmental change... what exactly are you basing this off of? Do you have any evidence from the news or this trial that you can point to, or is it just your opinion that it is so?... was it by saying "hold the line", like Toto did in one of his songs?

The criminal trial for mischief and counselling mischief hasn't seen the Crown put forth much evidence for Tamara Lich specifically. It has seen testimony from Ottawa police officers that they directed the convoy vehicles where to park, and what routes to take though.
Click to expand...


I wasn’t refering to Tamara Lich, rather the so called ‘Queen of Canada’. Completely different person with a completely different set of issues.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
I wasn’t refering to Tamara Lich, rather the so called ‘Queen of Canada’. Completely different person with a completely different set of issues.
Click to expand...
Nevermind, I didn't read back far enough in the thread to catch that. Romana Didulo is a different story altogether.
 
OldSolduer said:
I bet the Crown is betting on a plea deal.
Click to expand...
I think by this point they know better.

Although this has been an ugly court process, I’m not seeing anything that doesn’t make sense in the context of delayed/late disclosure with some screwups on the police/crown side. I’ve had disclosure requests come in from defense literally mid trial, with a resultant delay and scramble to disclose. Didn’t torpedo anything in my case, but it absolutely could.

My money is Lich and Barber’s lawyers will fight everything they can, and will built an argument on the delayed disclosure for a breach of their 11(b) Charter rights to a speedy trial per the Jordan ruling. It may succeed. Some of the convoy cases are taking super long to make it to trial; I still have one outstanding that will be nearly two years by the time trial starts. I don’t know how it hasn’t already eaten a Jordan.
 
brihard said:
I think by this point they know better.

Although this has been an ugly court process, I’m not seeing anything that doesn’t make sense in the context of delayed/late disclosure with some screwups on the police/crown side. I’ve had disclosure requests come in from defense literally mid trial, with a resultant delay and scramble to disclose. Didn’t torpedo anything in my case, but it absolutely could.

My money is Lich and Barber’s lawyers will fight everything they can, and will built an argument on the delayed disclosure for a breach of their 11(b) Charter rights to a speedy trial per the Jordan ruling. It may succeed. Some of the convoy cases are taking super long to make it to trial; I still have one outstanding that will be nearly two years by the time trial starts. I don’t know how it hasn’t already eaten a Jordan.
Click to expand...
I've been getting subpoenad as a witness from a trial that has been pushed from 2021 multiple times, and now bounced again to 2025. The impression I get is it's a lot of legal manuevering on the defence said causing huge delays, but the whole thing is weird. If it doesn't get delayed again, they'll be going back to something from 2016.

I really have nothing substantial to add to either prosecution or defence, so it's mostly just annoying at this point to have to keep explaining it to new CoC.
 
The case was brought forward by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Mosley wrote, “I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”

Outstanding ruling, though that was obvious. Some faith being slowly restored.
 

CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that he supported invoking the Emergencies Act, even if he didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy met his agency's definition of a threat to national security.

In his final report, Rouleau argued that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.

They weren't a national security threat, and that definition existed in the EA at the time. Just because some bureaucrat disagrees with a definition isn't any reason to disregard the law.

Is there anything worse than a government deciding to ignore it's own laws to the detriment of it's citizens?
 
TacticalTea said:
globalnews.ca

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act for ‘Freedom Convoy’ violated Charter | Globalnews.ca

The Federal Court has ruled the Trudeau government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act during the so-called "Freedom Convoy" that descended on Ottawa violated the Charter.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca

A serious court has pronounced a ruling on the matter.

EMERGENCIES ACT INVOCATION VIOLATED CONSTITUTION
Click to expand...
Court decision attached - screen grab of the "nut graph"
Screenshot 2024-01-23 162707.jpg
More from the CCLA here
ccla.org

Emergency is Not in the Eye of the Beholder: Federal Court Grants Victory to CCLA in Emergencies Act Challenge - CCLA

ccla.org ccla.org
Next step: asking the next level of serious court for its take ...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1749868492545831157
 

Attachments

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bread Guy
    • Like
Survey: "Two-thirds say inconsistent treatment from authorities favours some groups over others"
Replies
0
Views
2K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
    • Insightful
    • Like
Survey says: "Most Canadians say demonstrations raise awareness, but don’t change policy or minds"
Replies
2
Views
2K
SeaKingTacco
SeaKingTacco
K
    • Like
Have you heard of the "Take back Canada" protests?
Replies
3
Views
792
quadrapiper
quadrapiper
daftandbarmy
Jonathan Pedneault resigns from Green Party, leaving Elizabeth May as sole leader
Replies
11
Views
1K
Loachman
L
K
    • Humorous
    • Trolling
  • Locked
Government using the military to force vaccines on the unvaccinated
Replies
8
Views
646
PuckChaser
PuckChaser
Back
Top