Here’s the News: So Trudeau’s Emergency Act Was Illegal!
As a Canadian court rules that Justin Trudeau freezing protesters’ bank accounts violated Canada’s Charter – ie WAS ILLEGAL – is this a victory for free speech and set a precedent or will it lead to an even more authoritarian response from Trudeau’s government? --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
Remember if you become a supporter of our work we make additional videos every week like one on the farming protest that's very like the Canadian trucker story as a matter of fact and you'll see how it all connected to January 6th and you'll see how liberalism is using the idea of the far right To introduce more authoritarianism apparently to protect people.
We also did an exclusive video on an 8% increase in child deaths.
We give you the kind of content that's difficult to bring you publicly, and it's so vital that you support our work if you can, because as you know, we are facing a tyrannical and authoritarian force that wants to censor and shut down.
In fact, when I'm reading about some of this stuff, I think about the demonetization on YouTube, and I think about the government getting involved in our work, and I think about how the legacy media have operated recently regarding me personally.
And it's very important that if you can, you support our work.
Because there's no doubt we are sliding towards authoritarianism under the guise of liberalism.
And the Emergency Act and the attempt to evoke it by Justin Trudeau was one of those moments that revealed that neoliberalism and its sort of mask of cultural progressiveness This is an interesting force in contemporary politics.
Remember, people had their bank accounts frozen.
People went to jail.
We were told that it was a national emergency.
Canada has never evoked this act in its history.
So it was an unprecedented act with unprecedented consequences.
All the while, we were told that the truckers were racist, that they were Nazis.
Remember, this kind of rhetoric is becoming extremely common.
January 6th was an insurrection.
The farmers' protests are somehow far-right and racist.
It's almost as if If you attempt to resist globalism, which amounts to the advance of the agenda of a global elite attempting to control the world's resources and the world's democracies, if you oppose that, you will be called far-right.
Fortunately, in Canada, a ruling has found that Trudeau's government acted illegally.
Let's have a look at this story and see what it means for all of us.
Ottawa's weeks-long gridlock warranted the government's attention, according to the federal court.
But using the Emergencies Act to deal with it was not justified.
Justice Richard Mosley ruled that the federal government violated two sections of the Charter, freezing bank accounts was an unreasonable search and seizure, and the nationwide order to stop protesting violated the right to free expression.
One key factor, Ontario and Alberta had already shut down border protests, demonstrating it could be done.
These are things that you might have felt at the time when you heard bank accounts being frozen.
Surely these protests are freedom of expression.
Thankfully, Canada has a form of constitution in which those values and ideas are enshrined.
The bigger question is, would people ever attempt to exert this level of control again?
And are the legacy media going to be made accountable for supporting the claim that these truckers were racist and far right and that their protests were not legitimate?
This ruling had a different conclusion than the head of the public commission found last year.
Unlike his findings, the federal court ruling is legally binding.
Remember, since this, Canada has passed a new online safety bill that gives them incredible control over the media.
And of course, they said this was to amplify Canadian voices and to support diversity, all valuable and important ideas.
But one can't help but wonder if all of these online safety bills, we have one in our country, you've got them coming to your country, they're discussing them for the whole EU, are ultimately about controlling information so that trucker movements can't ever ever happen again. So that events where people protest
against government activity, state corporatism, globalist corruption, can't ever be discussed
or organized. You have to ask yourself in your own heart, do you think that these
regulatory bodies, the state and the way that they are sponsored and their globalist affiliations
care about you and your freedom? Or do they have other goals?
Saying I have concluded that the decision to issue the proclamation that would be the
invoking of the Emergencies Act does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness, justification,
transparency and intelligibility.
That means it was stupid, unreasonable and not transparent, which is how it seemed at the time.
I mean, what are they going to do next?
Applaud a Nazi in Parliament?
And he talks as well about some of the financial penalties they brought in in terms of seizing and freezing bank accounts because that affected people beyond just the people they were trying to affect.
That itself was an overstep.
One theme, whether it's in the United States of America and the anti-MAGA rhetoric continually in the media, the condemnation of agricultural movements, or indeed the story we're discussing now, the trucker movement, what becomes clear is there is a disdain at the level of media for ordinary working people.
And there is an ongoing effort and appetite to leverage ideas that legitimize the condemnation of ordinary working people.
They're racist, they're disgusting, they're stupid, they shouldn't have rights.
That emergency act was literally, we don't care about their rights, we should be able to bypass their rights, when in fact what they were doing was protesting quite unreasonable government activity that looks more and more unreasonable the more we learn about vaccine efficacy, the more we learn about the efficacy of lockdown, the more we learn about the financial relationships between the state and pharmaceutical organisations, the more we learn about the laws and indemnity that was granted to these organisations.
The truckers, it seems, were right, the media were wrong, the government were wrong. Without the scrutiny of independent media,
these kind of stories would just sort of fizzle out. Without the ability to use
social media to organize, the truckers would not be able to mount that
protest. Without the independent media and social media, knowledge of the frozen
bank accounts would not have risen to the point where enough people were
disgusted and aware that even if they sort of like politicians like Justin Trudeau
and their cute socks and their lovely hair and their love of
dressing up, shall we call it, I deeply, deeply regret. It seems that there are
questions to be asked of governments that have the aesthetic of liberalism, kindness,
compassion, progressivism, but the actions of authoritarianism.
This is the defining story of our time.
What's interesting as well in part of his judgment is he talks about how if he had been at the table, you know, making the decisions, that he does recognize that hindsight is 20-20, and that in the moment he may have even been persuaded that this was necessary.
It seems like that judge is trying to offer as much mitigation as possible.
Anyone could make the mistake of freezing bank accounts and throwing pastors into jail and all of that.
I might have even done it myself.
But the fact is, when you actually look at what's written down in our charter, it was illegal.
Presumably, so as not to have masses of people over Canada right now going, wait a minute, we were protesting, we were within our rights to protest, and they froze our bank accounts through people in jail evoking an emergency act, and we're not getting sufficient recompense.
What now?
What should happen as a result of this?
Do the people get their bank accounts unfrozen?
Are they compensated in some way?
What about the people that have done jail time as a result of those measures?
And what about Trudeau himself?
Is he allowed to continue to govern, given he's a person who reaches for an emergency act with the enthusiasm he reaches for the shoe polish on party night?
But that in the light of day, when you actually get to hear all the evidence and see what the applicants, in this case, the Civil Liberties Association, but others as well, then you get to see, well, actually, maybe it wasn't.
It's not helpful that in this footage you continually see militarized police force, which is another one of the ongoing stories of our age.
The militarization of police forces, the introduction of anti-protest laws, the evocation of emergency acts, the introduction of surveillance and censorship laws across the world.
That image there...
That's Canada.
That's not the United States.
That's not Chechnya.
That's Canada with all of its sweet freedom and sweet, sweet syrup acting like a tyrannical state while all the while telling you, look at my hair.
I'm called Chrystia Freeland.
That's the finance minister who has literal Nazis in her family background and actual Nazis in the parliament being applauded and a willingness to freeze people's bank accounts and intervene in people's private and financial lives in unprecedented ways.
Why?
Because it's an emergency.
Don't you think that there seems to be an appetite within these type of governments to create a state of emergency in order to evoke these laws?
To say there's a terrorist threat in order to evoke these laws, not the other way around.
And so he does say there is a recognition of this benefit of hindsight and time to actually go through it, but in the moment you might be seized with the sense of urgency.
And a mad, giddy, gluttonous appetite for power.
All of us can get sort of priapic and giddy and styvoking emergency laws and freezing bank accounts.
Any one of us has felt the sweet, seductive aroma of power in our nostrils.
That's not how a government's supposed to behave.
Look at all the rational rhetoric.
Look at the way that Justin Trudeau was on the television.
We have to shame people that don't take vaccines.
These truckers are Nazis.
Turns out the person that was getting a little bit emotional and a little bit fascistic was Trudeau himself, no?
Bit late if you had your bank account frozen and if you were thrown in jail.
Seems like what they're asking for is the kind of compassion that we would give one another on an interpersonal level.
Like, oh, sorry, I shouldn't have said that, actually.
I made a mistake.
Oh, don't worry about it.
That's not afforded in today's culture.
Errors, errors of judgment, errors of speech.
Those things, the kind of progressivism that Justin Trudeau upfront advocates for while round the back introducing emergency laws, that's the kind of compassionate, oh sorry about that, we got a bit hot under the collar during those protests, we knew we were exaggerating the threat of Covid, we knew we were amplifying the efficacy of the vaccines, we panicked and called everyone Nazis.
Hey, it could happen to anyone.
Some people involved in the protests are calling this a win.
This resonates as pleasant news, but I would love to know what the outcome of this ruling is.
Will there be consequence for Trudeau, Freeland and Mendocino?
That's yet to play out.
It was officially wrong.
And we're sorry.
And let that be an end to it!
Thank you, good night, and God bless Canada.
That's the way these things play out, like 2008 financial crash.
That should not have happened.
We're very, very sorry indeed.
Are you going to do anything about it?
As I said, very sorry indeed.
And then there's the matter of the protesters who had their bank accounts frozen and whether this ruling could give weight to any potential legal action by them against the government, although that is still unclear.
Chrystia Freeland, now the sarcastically named finance minister who throws people's bank accounts.
So we are aware of the court decision.
We have discussed it with the Prime Minister, with cabinet colleagues, with senior federal government officials and experts.
We respect very much Canada's independent judiciary.
However, We do not agree with this decision.
Hey, you should do a protest!
Oh no, I forgot!
It's illegal!
I would just like to take a moment to remind Canadians of how serious the situation was in our country when we took that decision.
The public safety of Canadians was under threat.
Safety, that's what we care about, remember?
We're here to protect you, to take care of you.
There's a lot of threats out there.
It's very scary out there.
No, what's scary is you.
Our national security, which includes our national economic security, was under threat.
The people whose economic security was most threatened was the people who had their bank accounts frozen.
I'll just get myself some food.
I said food.
Hello?
Hello?
Frozen.
It was a hard decision to take.
We took it very seriously after a lot of hard work.
Oh, well, that's okay then, doesn't mean you took it seriously.
Like when you try out those Nazis in Parliament.
Is this serious or do mistakes happen?
What is it?
What's the rules?
We were convinced At the time, I was convinced at the time, it was the right thing to do.
It was the necessary thing to do.
That's what fascism looks like and sounds like now.
It was necessary.
We had no choice.
Remember, it might not look like the handmaid's tale with the Christian theocracy.
It might not look like Benito Mussolini.
It might look like people with lovely haircuts, and pretty names coming along telling you that they were
scared and it's for your safety and we had to do what's right. And then you
investigate these people and their relationships and the way that the company
is financially undergirded and you start to recognize that their biggest
threat, their biggest fear, their biggest concern is your freedom. It's not
something that had ever been done in Canada before. It was certainly not something
that we undertook to do lightly.
It's weird all this, like, whether it was serious or whether you believed it or whether you undertook it lightly.
That's sort of weird framing, isn't it?
Yes, we did illegally use the Emergency Act, but we didn't do it lightly.
That ain't what we're discussing, mate.
We're discussing whether or not it was legal.
Yeah, but just to let you know, I actually pushed a pin into my hand while doing it.
None of that matters.
It was illegal.
The responsibility of a prime minister is to make the tough calls and keep people safe.
And this was a moment where the collective advice of cabinet, of the public service, and my own inclination was that this was a moment to do something that we needed to do to keep Canadians safe.
People that were doing the protests were Canadian.
They didn't come from somewhere else.
So let's not use patriotic, insular language about Canada now, because at the time, those Canadians were Nazis.
At the time, those Canadians had their bank accounts frozen.
At that time, those Canadians had their rights illegally violated.
So talking about the way it's so hard to be a prime minister.
What was your dad again?
He was a prime minister as well.
Oh God, how did you do it?
You can't use all of that, the burden of power stuff, when power has been plainly misused.
And knowing full well that this was an inevitable consequence of me signing, I agree.
It wasn't even my idea.
That's like a kid, isn't it?
It wasn't my idea.
It was their idea.
I just signed it.
I just prime ministered it.
I was very comfortable that we were at a moment where this was the right thing to do.
And... We did it.
Oh, well, thanks.
Good night.
We were able to solve the situation with it.
That there was no loss of life.
There was no, you know, serious violence.
There's no loss of life.
There's no serious violence.
Oh, right.
That's down to you, isn't it?
That's people who go, yeah, but imagine how the pandemic would have been if we hadn't done all those lockdowns and all those mandates or near mandates.
Do you see what I mean?
We're not able to envisage what happened if they hadn't done what they did, which has now been deemed to be illegal.
He's still kind of trying to offer it up as a sort of solution.
There's no compunction.
There haven't been A recurrence of these kinds of illegal occupations since then.
A lot of people protesting illegal occupations.
I'm not going to pretend that it's the only thing that could have done it.
But it did do it.
What the protesters were doing was illegal.
In evoking the Emergency Act, what Justin Trudeau did was illegal.
And he's still saying, it worked though, it worked.
That amounts to by any means necessary.
If you envisage for a moment, Justin Trudeau, not with his lovely hair and handsome face and delightful suit, but wearing like a series of medals and a military hat saying, we did what we had to do.
We got the neighborhoods back under control.
This is just a series of procedures that we have to endure now.
You'd go, well that is a junta!
That is a dictatorship!
That is corruption!
And you'd be right.
I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice in agreeing with the invocation.
Brilliant.
I've concluded that the decision to issue the proclamation of the Emergencies Act does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency and intelligibility and was not justified, Mosley wrote.
Imagine for a moment that it was Donald Trump, or one of the enemies of the legacy media, that had behaved in this manner.
Can you imagine the deluge?
They would say that, wouldn't they?
On MSNBC and CNN.
This is exactly what dictatorships do.
They won't report on that in this way, because, generally speaking, I'll tell you what I think's behind it.
They don't like working people.
They don't like ordinary people.
So things that are against them, they just think, ugh.
Trudeau admitted that the protests were not violent, but still insisted that he's confident with his decision to use a law that has never been used before to stop the protests.
There was no loss of life.
There was no serious violence.
There hasn't been a recurrence of these kinds of illegal occupations since then.
I'm absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice in agreeing with the invocation.
Trudeau told the commission that his investigation of the government's decision to use the Emergencies Act was justifiable.
Very much like, I imagine, a mentor of his, Tony Blair, when reflecting on the decision to evade Iraq.
I did the right thing, I'm serene, I've got no sleepless nights about it.
Well, that's just your personal conscience, and I recognise that that's important to any sovereign individual, but when you're talking about matters of invoking emergency acts and freezing bank accounts and jailing protesters, It's not enough.
Before the Emergencies Act was invoked, Trudeau said that those opposing Covid measures and restrictions were of a small fringe minority who had unacceptable views.
In a sense, the more that you look at this story, the more you see that it's layer after layer of authoritarianism masked as concern for public welfare.
We're doing this for your own good, seems to be the clarion call of this new form of authoritarianism.
And when it's found legally that what they did was unwarranted, and therefore in fact illegal, they say, yeah, but would have been much worse if we hadn't done it.
I mean, if that was coming from Pol Pot or someone that we recognize and accept was a military dictator, we'd go, oh God, that's the twisted, warped, More important than that, if you can, please, stay free.
