London police blow up a car, Ben Bankas on why Trump is getting a bad deal on Canada, Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament taken to court: Links 1 for January 8, 2025

1. London police blow up a car. I wonder if it had a bumper sticker that was anti-Islam or had a joke about ‘trans’ people.

To be clear: It seems to be the police who blew up the car. There is no information as to any confirmation that the car was a threat to anyone yet. No bomb sniffer devices or dogs. For all we know, some mother was buying a toy for her kid, double parked, and came out to find her car blown to bits. In which case she will probably be in jail for years. Especially if she had a number sticker about Islam or trans people. Speaking to Hellequin, it could also be a “Free Tommy Robinson” sticker. Or perhaps a Donald Trump 2025. And frankly we are being more serious than funny here.

2. Here is why Trump is probably not serious about Canada

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Ben Bankas (@benbankas2)

3. UK opposition MP speaks truth to Starmer. Amazingly.

4. It has been our contention for some time now, that the CBC is not Trudeau’s stenographers, but that Trudeau and the CBC work for the same people. That the CBC would always create propaganda supporting Trudeau so long as he served the purpose of the COMINTERN (for lack of a better term) and when he no longer does, they would turn on him in order to get someone in place that can continue the revolution.

This hour has 22 minutes: CBC

5. The JCCF, Canada’s #1 law firm for freedom and defending rights against an Orwellian state, is taking Trudeau and the govt to court over his prorogation of Parliament as unconstitutional, as Trudeau’s unpopularity is not a legitimate state emergency

Canadians challenge Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament: “no reasonable justification”

TORONTO: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is providing lawyers on an urgent basis to two Canadians, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, seeking a Federal Court declaration that Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent prorogation of Parliament is unreasonable and must be set aside.

When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session is terminated, and all parliamentary activity, including work on bills and in committees, immediately stops.

Among its many grounds arguing that Trudeau’s decision to advise the Governor General to exercise her prerogative power to prorogue Parliament to March 24, 2025, this application argues that the decision to prorogue Parliament was “incorrect, unreasonable or both.” The court application, filed today, contends that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue “was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada].”

At his news conference yesterday, on January 6, 2025, the Prime Minister’s stated justification for the prorogation was (1) to “reset” Parliament and (2) to permit the Liberal Party of Canada time to select a new party leader. No explanation was provided as to why Parliament could not recess instead. No explanation was provided as to why Members of Parliaments could not immediately exercise their right to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the government. A majority of MPs have now repeatedly promised to do just that, which would trigger an election and provide the needed “reset” in a democratic and legitimate way.

No explanation was provided as to why a prorogation of almost three months is needed. No explanation was provided as to why the Liberal Party of Canada ought to be entitled to such a lengthy prorogation simply so it can hold an internal leadership race.

This Federal Court application includes language taken from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled in 2019 that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson had prorogued Parliament unlawfully, as a means of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s “Brexit” negotiations concerning the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

The application contends, among other things, that “in all of the circumstances surrounding it, the [prorogation] has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, particularly insofar as it relates to Parliament’s ability to deal quickly and decisively with especially pressing issues, such as the situation caused by President-Elect Trump’s stated intention to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada.”

“This prorogation stymies the publicly stated intent of a majority of MPs to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government and trigger an election. Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government. It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability,” stated lawyer James Manson. “We will invite the Court to conclude that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament was without reasonable justification.”

Applicant David MacKinnon feels strongly about this case. He stated, “This case concerns a living tree – our Constitution – and how that living tree withers without proper care. If we are to fight tyranny – for it is tyranny that confronts us – we must find the answer within the memory of our historical past. We call this memory ‘the common law.’ It is enshrined in the preamble of our constitution. The common law is the repository and guarantor of our justice and our wealth and happiness. Had we nurtured our living tree, and looked to our past, we would have read Lord Denning’s admonishment to the Attorney General of an earlier time: ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’”

Thank you all for checking out this site.