Trudeau Liberals threaten Canadians’ right to protest as appeal moves through the court
The appeal of Justice Mosley’s decision that invoking the Emergencies Act was unreasonable raises concerns over civil liberties and political dissent in Canada.
The Trudeau government's appeal of a critical court decision that ruled its use of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests was unjustified, was heard in court on February 4 and 5.
In January 2024, Justice Richard Mosley declared that the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the protests was unreasonable, and thus its use violated Canadians' constitutional rights. The court found that the protests, although disruptive, didn’t meet the legal threshold to declare a national emergency and that a national security threat was merely speculative.
Mosley’s decision means that the government’s actions — freezing bank accounts, deploying heavy-handed police forces, and seizing assets without judicial review — were a violation of basic civil liberties, including the right to peaceful assembly.
Despite this ruling, the Trudeau government is spending taxpayer dollars to appeal the decision, arguing that the protests were a national security threat. The defence, however, maintains that the government’s justification was based more on speculation than on solid evidence. The protests, which centred on opposition to vaccine mandates and government overreach throughout the COVID-19 response, were portrayed as a growing security threat by the state, and the Liberals were embarrassed as the U.S. expressed concerns over trade disruptions at major ports of entry.
The most controversial aspect of the government’s response was the freezing of protesters’ bank accounts. This measure prevented people from accessing their own funds, leaving them stranded and vulnerable. Defenders of the original court decision argue that freezing accounts without clear evidence of criminal activity violated fundamental rights under Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
Bank accounts are officially being frozen under Justin Trudeau's Emergency Economic Measures Order under the Emergencies Act. https://t.co/W5aBrA0RG2
— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) February 17, 2022
The case is not just about the government’s actions in 2022. It’s about setting a dangerous precedent – should the government have the unchecked power to suppress its citizens' political dissent by invoking emergency powers under vague national security concerns?
Several provinces, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, have intervened in the case, arguing that the federal government overstepped its authority. Alberta, in particular, pointed to the protests at the Coutts border crossing, where local authorities were already handling the situation without the need for the Emergencies Act.
The outcome of this appeal will have lasting consequences for how future protests are managed and how the definition of national security threats is applied. If the government succeeds, it could redefine the balance between national security and civil liberties, allowing for greater government control over public dissent.
As the case progresses, Canadians are left to ask: How much power should the state have to suppress protest, and at what cost to democratic rights?
Featured Stories
COMMENTS
-
Frank Narejko commented 2025-02-07 10:44:28 -0500Was it covert operations that took out Trudeau and the Liberal’s?
Check back with Home Land Security a 100 years from now. -
Bernhard Jatzezck commented 2025-02-06 21:41:15 -0500While I was in industry, I saw a plaque with the following:
Company Rules
1. The boss is always right.
2. When the boss is wrong, see rule #1. -
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-02-06 21:05:33 -0500Evil never sleeps. These wicked bureaucrats and government leaders continue to prosecute legitimate objections to their tyrannical edicts. And it was the crackdown on truckers that lost Justin the Turd his lead in the polls.
