Ezra Levant notes the unprecedented use of irrelevant victim impact statements in the Tamara/Chris sentencing hearings

We have provided evidence over the last several years which is at least indicative, if not conclusive that there was a communist revolution which has taken place across the West, and especially the Anglosphere since around 2015. This really manifested in 2020 though with the Covid Line of Operation.

Secondly, communism is not what it sells itself as. It is not a system intended to be more “fair” as any citizen of a Western Republic/’democracy’ would think of the word. But one where all meaningful terms are redefined, especially fair, and reality itself is determined by the state.

Ezra Levant’s report on how the prosecution is handling the hearings for Chris and Tamara do nothing to mitigate these suppositions. Although the hearing for Helen Grus is frankly astonishing in its deployment of a procedure intended to create a political outcome and not determine the truth of the matter.

Here is a short segment of Helen’s Lawyer, Bathsheeba speaking on some of the irregularities of that hearing:

The trial of Helen Grus was a hearing, not quote a criminal trial. but the basic procedure was, and is the same. The appearance is supposed to be a process of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is the presumption of innocence, and that the political consequences to the verdict have no bearing on the outcome. 20 years ago or more, this was basically, not always true, but basically true. When a trial was political, there was a stink about it. Movies got made about it. Appeals were launched.

Increasingly, it appears that any trial, hearing, internal board discussion such as the ‘College of Surgeons and Physicians” that has a political consequence, specifically where the real question is one of defying state diktats with zero consideration as to what is good for the patient, or what is actually true, or what fits the law as it was; all these processes are not the opposite of what they were designed to be.

In other words, none of this is hypocrisy. It is in fact a new modus. A new set of desired outcomes and processes, and for different reasons that have nothing to do with truth in any socratic sense. It does make sense when you understand what it actually is.

And if we expect to have any hope in actually fighting it, we have to start by understanding what it actually is.

ADDENDUM:

This feels like a data point worthy of a red letter addition to this post.

One of the lawyers connected to the Freedom Convoy had her bank account shut down, in what has come to be known as, “Debanking” in Canada where any counter-revolutionary with any authority or just who comes to the attention of someone in the new communist government(s) in Canada will force an end to your relationship with your bank, 100% for political reasons. This will include your mortgage if you have one with that bank.

From the Western Standard:

Royal Bank of Canada shuts down Freedom Convoy lawyer’s accounts over ‘risk concerns’

Eva Chipiuk, a lawyer known for her involvement in the Freedom Convoy and vocal criticism of Canadian institutions, has been blindsided after the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) terminated its banking relationship with her, citing risk-related concerns.

According to an official letter the banking institution sent to Chipiuk, her “recent activity was outside of RBC’s client risk appetite,” and it would “no longer be in a position to continue serving her.”

This is of course the kind of careful language used to disguise a real purpose with one that the public can accept without too much fuss. “Outside the risk appetite”, to mean that the consequences by the COMINTERN to the bank, or its proxies like ANTIFA etc. are more than the bank can handle.

Please see this article and video for another stunning example of Debanking someone with a counter-revolutionary view

ADDENDUM II:

There was no trial/sentencing hearing today. The sentence will be delivered in November of this year.