The Democracy Fund says it understands why some Canadians are “puzzled” that the Public Order Emergency Commission justified Ottawa’s use of the Emergency [War Measures] Act against freedom convoy protesters..“You might be asking yourself how this result came about. Isn't there a clear legal test about threats or acts of serious violence against persons or property? If anything, it seemed like the Freedom Convoy was remarkable for its lack of violence, especially for a protest of its size. Any violence that did occur was minor and atypical of the protest dynamic,” the TDF legal team wrote in a Monday press release..“If you are puzzled about (Justice Paul) Rouleau’s conclusion, you can take consolation in knowing that you are not alone. Nor are you necessarily part of a ‘fringe minority’ that simply doesn't understand. Rouleau himself said that he did not consider the factual basis for his conclusion to be ‘overwhelming.’ He also stated that ‘reasonable and informed people’ could reach a different conclusion than his.”.TDF suggested Roleau could reach this conclusion not because it was the one most likely, but because it was reasonably possible..“The federal government did not need conclusive proof that there were acts or threats of serious violence for ideological purposes. They only needed to show there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that there were,” the release said..“This standard of reasonable grounds is elusive. It is more than a mere possibility but less than a balance of probabilities. It is an ‘objective standard’ that must be based on ‘credible and compelling’ information but not necessarily information that tips the scales of probability.”.The organization suggested the use of this standard had a dubious history of uses against minorities..“It is the standard that police use when deciding to arrest a person without a warrant, which they have historically done to the detriment of certain minorities in our country.".“That’s not because the standard is inherently bad. Rather, it’s because the standard is inherently flexible…it generally flexes in the direction of our beliefs and prejudices or in the direction of what is popular or expedient. It can also flex in accordance with external pressures. Might that have been a factor here?”.Canada received international criticism for its use of Emergencies Act. One month later, while visiting the European Parliament, some members criticized the Prime Minister..Mislav Kolakusic, a Croatian lawyer and MEP, said Canada had become a “symbol of civil rights violation” while under Trudeau’s “quasi-liberal boot.”.“We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block bank accounts of single parents so they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes,” said Kolakusic..“To you, these may be liberal methods, for many citizens of the world, it is a dictatorship of the worst kind.”.German MEP Christine Anderson, who recently toured Canada, also condemned Trudeau as a “disgrace for any democracy” last March..“A prime minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship, who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy should not be allowed to speak in this house at all,” she said..“Please spare us your presence.”.The TDF believes the commission had comments of this sort in mind when rendering its decision..“How would it look if Canada exercised emergency powers against its own citizens when there were no grounds to do so? It might look like Canada is not immune from the authoritarianism we criticize in other countries,” said TDF..“The Emergencies Act was also on trial, in a way, as it had never been invoked…Would these protections make an actual difference, or would the first exercise of power under the Emergencies Act continue the shameful legacy of the War Measures Act, which allowed Canada to intern Japanese Canadians and to make warrantless arrests of suspected FLQ members?”.The TDF, which was very active during the seven weeks the commission held hearings, said one can only guess what the ruling would have been apart from such factors..“What we do know is that the standard was flexed in favour of a government that used unprecedented emergency powers against its ideological opponents. The use of these powers against Canadians has set a new and dangerous precedent for what constitutes an emergency in a free and democratic society and what actions the government is justified in taking against its own people in the future. The protestors were Canadians who were ignored, mocked, and suppressed by a government that refused to engage with them,” wrote the TDF..“The future will tell whether the feelings of division and mistrust driving this protest will be exacerbated by the report and whether the commissioner should have used the flexibility of the reasonable grounds standard to send a different message to this government.”.Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty.
The Democracy Fund says it understands why some Canadians are “puzzled” that the Public Order Emergency Commission justified Ottawa’s use of the Emergency [War Measures] Act against freedom convoy protesters..“You might be asking yourself how this result came about. Isn't there a clear legal test about threats or acts of serious violence against persons or property? If anything, it seemed like the Freedom Convoy was remarkable for its lack of violence, especially for a protest of its size. Any violence that did occur was minor and atypical of the protest dynamic,” the TDF legal team wrote in a Monday press release..“If you are puzzled about (Justice Paul) Rouleau’s conclusion, you can take consolation in knowing that you are not alone. Nor are you necessarily part of a ‘fringe minority’ that simply doesn't understand. Rouleau himself said that he did not consider the factual basis for his conclusion to be ‘overwhelming.’ He also stated that ‘reasonable and informed people’ could reach a different conclusion than his.”.TDF suggested Roleau could reach this conclusion not because it was the one most likely, but because it was reasonably possible..“The federal government did not need conclusive proof that there were acts or threats of serious violence for ideological purposes. They only needed to show there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that there were,” the release said..“This standard of reasonable grounds is elusive. It is more than a mere possibility but less than a balance of probabilities. It is an ‘objective standard’ that must be based on ‘credible and compelling’ information but not necessarily information that tips the scales of probability.”.The organization suggested the use of this standard had a dubious history of uses against minorities..“It is the standard that police use when deciding to arrest a person without a warrant, which they have historically done to the detriment of certain minorities in our country.".“That’s not because the standard is inherently bad. Rather, it’s because the standard is inherently flexible…it generally flexes in the direction of our beliefs and prejudices or in the direction of what is popular or expedient. It can also flex in accordance with external pressures. Might that have been a factor here?”.Canada received international criticism for its use of Emergencies Act. One month later, while visiting the European Parliament, some members criticized the Prime Minister..Mislav Kolakusic, a Croatian lawyer and MEP, said Canada had become a “symbol of civil rights violation” while under Trudeau’s “quasi-liberal boot.”.“We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block bank accounts of single parents so they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes,” said Kolakusic..“To you, these may be liberal methods, for many citizens of the world, it is a dictatorship of the worst kind.”.German MEP Christine Anderson, who recently toured Canada, also condemned Trudeau as a “disgrace for any democracy” last March..“A prime minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship, who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy should not be allowed to speak in this house at all,” she said..“Please spare us your presence.”.The TDF believes the commission had comments of this sort in mind when rendering its decision..“How would it look if Canada exercised emergency powers against its own citizens when there were no grounds to do so? It might look like Canada is not immune from the authoritarianism we criticize in other countries,” said TDF..“The Emergencies Act was also on trial, in a way, as it had never been invoked…Would these protections make an actual difference, or would the first exercise of power under the Emergencies Act continue the shameful legacy of the War Measures Act, which allowed Canada to intern Japanese Canadians and to make warrantless arrests of suspected FLQ members?”.The TDF, which was very active during the seven weeks the commission held hearings, said one can only guess what the ruling would have been apart from such factors..“What we do know is that the standard was flexed in favour of a government that used unprecedented emergency powers against its ideological opponents. The use of these powers against Canadians has set a new and dangerous precedent for what constitutes an emergency in a free and democratic society and what actions the government is justified in taking against its own people in the future. The protestors were Canadians who were ignored, mocked, and suppressed by a government that refused to engage with them,” wrote the TDF..“The future will tell whether the feelings of division and mistrust driving this protest will be exacerbated by the report and whether the commissioner should have used the flexibility of the reasonable grounds standard to send a different message to this government.”.Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty.
