Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Debunking Trudeau's Lies About the Truckers' Convoy

Cosmin Dzsurdzsa

True North May 17, 2021:
 Several key pieces of testimony have poked holes in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s justification for using the Emergencies Act to quash peaceful freedom convoy protestors in February.

Throughout the protests, the Liberals and legacy media made a number of claims about the convoy ranging from extremist involvement, foreign funding and millionaires bankrolling the movement. To date, all of these claims have been called into question by law enforcement officials and fundraising executives.

Several Trudeau cabinet ministers claimed in February that foreign extremists were funding the convoy to undermine Canada’s democracy. Among these ministers was public safety minister Marco Mendicino who stated – without evidence – that many of the donations had “been raised from abroad.” Minister of emergency preparedness Bill Blair also claimed that “foreign entities” were behind the protests.

Media outlets including the Toronto Star and the CBC also published articles falsely suggesting that the convoy was foreign-funded. The CBC was forced to retract a story that claimed that support for the convoy had come mainly from abroad.

Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed also compared the convoy donations to “terrorist financing” and called on terrorist-funding watchdogs to investigate fundraising platforms.

True North has listed nine instances where officials have categorically disputed the Liberal government’s claims about the Freedom Convoy.


The Freedom Convoy & the Collapse of Canadian Liberalism

Six million Canadians detained in largest prison in the world


  1. There are similarities in the way the governments and mass media have responded to the truckers' convoy protests and the protests in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, 2021.

    The January 6th protests have been described as insurrectionary and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US, as absurd as that is. ( I regret there was vandalism involved, as I am sure 99.9% of those gathered there do also.)

    There's still talk of charging Trump with inciting a riot, and that may come to something if Trump decides to run in 2024.

    I'm not sure about this, but it almost looks as if the US government considered invoking an equivalent to Canada's Emergency Act.

    You tell me.

    A few idiot hooligans-- then all the fine people who were there to protest what they saw as a stolen election-- get associated with hooliganism and worse. I'm being honest when I say it does make me think more than twice about being involved in any such protest. That's probably the takeaway lesson for most people... It is not worth it.

    1. What we have is certainly not democracy, neither is it plutocracy nor oligarchy, since neither oligarchs nor plutocrats play an apparent role in government. What we have is a puppet-string pulling government of unknown agents that drives public acceptance of an anti-democratic agenda by staging theatrical events, e.g., 9/11, Covid, or by reframing spontaneous demonstrations as insurrection. What should this be called? Cryptocracy? hypnotocracy? theatrocracy?

    2. I suppose in Canada it should be called craptocracy, since its headed by Justin Turdeau

    3. I've been thinking a lot about the role of intellectual property rights in today's political climate. There has been a subtle shift in the role they play-- and it is towards them becoming political instruments of power and control.

      Bill Gates is nothing without intellectual property rights, especially patents. (One interesting facet of the Bill Gates saga: when Apple sued Microsoft over the overwhelming similarities between Microsoft's graphic user interface (GUI) and Apple's, Apple lost because Apple only had copyright protections, not patent protection.)

      Intellectual property rights ensure inventors and innovators are rewarded for their efforts. That's reasonable. Why did the lion's share of the reward go to this one man, who wasn't an inventor or innovator? Was that reasonable? Why doesn't this come up for discussion? Does this lion's share of the reward endow this one man with undue influence? Getting down to it, what is civil political power but influence?
      We don't think of Bill Gates as playing a role in government, but that's because he has never been elected to office. He does not comment in public about most political issues or events. Even with the pandemic, where he moved to a front and center position globally, most people would not perceive this as a political move or his assumption of a political role.

      It is perfect, what's been done. If people had been allowed to perceive the politics of the pandemic, or saw Bill Gates as just another politician "knowing what's best for everyone", there would have been vicious resistance to locking down, masking-- having their lives broken and likely permanently impaired. (The WSJ has published articles taking the position global supply chains are likely never going to be the same. That's so pessimistic it is almost anti-business.)

      I know I am not being very clear. The trick is precisely to reframe all of these phenomena so their basis in politics is either hidden or impossible to pin down accurately. (Again, about Bill Gates. We know he is invested in big pharma and we know his foundation (translation: tax shelter) profits from vaccine production. The World Health Organization Bill provides funds for, (more funding than most nation states) moved from an emphasis on preventable disease and public health measures, to an emphasis on vaccination.

      Now Bill has dictated to the entire world, both to governments and citizens, funding and administration of frequent "vaccination" for all. (I'm of the opinion there will be no mandatory vaccination-- it is not going to be necessary. Voluntary acceptance of "vaccination" has been sufficient. There's been pretty close to full compliance without the laws.)

      Yet Bill is not a dictator. He's not even a politician. He is--CAN YOU BELIEVE IT-- a generous philanthropist and admirably charitable humanitarian.