Senator Tannas debates against further use of the Emergencies Act

It is our position that the primary reason Trudeau said he will end the Emergency Act, (We still need to know if they did end it, if the checkpoints are gone and if bank accounts have been restored and if the government’s weaponized media has stopped intimidating people who legally and anonymously donated to a legal protest with stolen data) is because he did not want to look weak when the Senate voted it down. There can be more than one reason, but I think the timing is because of these senators. More of their interventions will be posted soon.

In the meantime Canadians and foreign investors, its best to operate on what you know for a fact. And the only thing you know for a fact is that the government of Canada and all its branches, which now include the banks, lie with every utterance. So be careful placing your wealth back into a system that can and will retroactively decide you are a criminal and seize all your assets.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

2 Replies to “Senator Tannas debates against further use of the Emergencies Act”

  1. COINCIDENCE, anyone?

    – After eleven years on the Supreme Court bench, he suddenly retires. –

    “During that timeframe, I have had the privilege of serving under two pre-eminent chief justices — Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Chief Justice Richard Wagner — persons of honour and integrity, courage and vision, who share a passion for justice and a fervent commitment to maintaining the rule of law,” he said, “protecting an independent judiciary, and preserving an unparalleled justice system for all Canadians.”

    (NOTE: The last judge to retire, Rosalie Abella, left office in 2021. She was replaced a few months later by Justice Mahmud Jamal.)

    https://www.onenewspage.com/n/Americas/1zoadjilfj/Supreme-Court-Justice-Michael-Moldaver-to-retire-Sept.htm

  2. I have listened to 3 different senators talk about the crisis and two issues stand out: they are remarkably ill informed about COVID, and they all miss the problem of which they are apart – they weren’t listening to Canadians before the crisis. The third problem is that they have adopted the language of government, calling the protest an “occupation” so they have already lost my respect. If the government stops listening and responding to the emails and telephone calls, never shows any respect to the citizens that disagree, what choice do the citizens have but to show up on the doorstep of the seat of power and request a hearing? When the government cannot supply any evidence for the measures that they are taking, what choice to the citizenry have but to disagree vehemently and physically? When both sides of the argument in the House claim high ground with respect to the science, but none of them can explain it, why should the citizens, especially the ones that came to protest who were better informed than the government, listen to a word that they push?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*