Freedom Convoy lawyer Eva Chipiuk is flatly rejecting Justice Paul Rouleau’s blanket exoneration of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Emergencies Act Inquiry report. .She said the Freedom Convoy clearly prevailed in the court of public opinion. “Let’s use the court of public opinion. It’s more powerful than courts and a lot cheaper,” she told me Tuesday in an exclusive interview. .“I’m way more fired up now. This was a little battle but there is a large war ahead of us.” . She pledged to keep fighting for justice for the political casualties of Trudeau’s use of the Emergency [War Measures] Act. .“As you might recall, there are still political prisoners and I think we have to put our attention [on that] because they’re going to continue to be vilified. This cannot happen in Canada,” she told the Western Standard. .The Public Order Emergency Commission report was released Feb. 17, three days ahead of schedule. .Rouleau’s concluding remarks in the executive summary to the "Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Emergency" are telling. .“I have concluded that in this case, the very high threshold for invocation was met. I have done so with reluctance. The state should generally be able to respond to circumstances of urgency without the use of emergency powers. It is only in rare instances, when the state cannot otherwise fulfill its fundamental obligation to ensure the safety and security of people and property, that resort to emergency measures will be found to be appropriate. As for the measures Cabinet put in place in response to the emergency, I conclude while most of the measures were appropriate and effective, others fell short.” .But Chipiuk says it should have been obvious no threshold was met. .She noted “honest, good, hardworking Canadians have been vilified so badly by this government … that anybody that wants to take a stand just stays back.” .She called the Trudeau government’s rhetoric against the convoy as an “insane, demeaning and I’m going to say defamatory campaign … calling them terrorists.” .The lawyer said Trudeau and his cabinet ministers went “way too far and way too crazy.” .She also wants to see a $400 million class action suit leveled against the convoy protesters dismissed.“That cannot happen in Canada. People have a right to protest. We have to keep fighting. This has just caused me to fuel it up a little bit and get into gear.” .Chipiuk revealed that Rouleau’s assertions are not the last judicial words on the validity of invoking the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022. A judicial review of Rouleau’s decision will be heard in April. She encouraged voters to think about what Trudeau did “when they go to the polls." .“This is not set in stone. This can be changed,” she said, noting, “We need public officials to stand for Canadians and not the government.” .Media reaction suggests Rouleau’s decision has not gone over well with many outlets, she added.“The world is talking about how unjustified this was and the Rouleau report was a whitewash — I think you used those words — and I’ve heard that already a lot, then I think that’s a win.” .Even The Globe and Mail editorialized Monday “we disagree, for instance with [Rouleau’s] conclusion that the invocation was justified.” .Chipiuk says that kind of writing from the mainstream media means “the government overplayed their hand … reasonable Canadians are talking now and saying this is not reasonable.” .She said she was frustrated with how the commission released its report and that the Freedom Convoy’s legal team found out via the media. .Ottawa media were provided with a copy of the report two hours before it was released to the public in a lock-up that resembled the annual release of the federal budget. .Chipiuk said the government can call Freedom Convoy protesters names like “un-Canadian” or “criminal,” but “if anybody watched … this was the farthest thing from a national security threat.” .She said the Emergencies Act invocation was a result of “pure incompetence from government levels and police authority.” .“People should not be vilified … because the government cannot be competent in its management of Canadians.”
