Trudeau Turns Canada’s Anti-Terror Laws Against His Own People

To post to facebook, click here:

The Canadian Anti-terrorism Act was originally passed by the Parliament of Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. 

Since then, the government of Canada has banned more than 52 terrorist organizations.They include Al Qaeda, TalibanArmed Islamic GroupInternational Sikh Youth Federation, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In January 2010, an immigrant named Zakaria Amara was sentenced to imprisonment for life for his role in the 2006 Toronto 18 terrorism case. It is the stiffest sentence ever given under the Act.

The overall message is conclusive: Canada’s anti-terrorist laws were created in response to a wave of international terrorism. The attacks on the World Trade Center, attributed to mastermind Osama bin Laden, has served as the catalyst.

Generally speaking, the impetus is based on the behavior of Islamic terror organizations. In Canada, its most extreme invocation applies to Zakaria Amara and the Toronto 18, charged with a plot to detonate truck bombs, storm the Parliament of Canada building, as well as the bombing of CSIS headquarters.

Has Justin Trudeau’s application of the Emergencies Act placed Canadian truckers on the same level as the Toronto 18? Let us explore the idea:

Canada’s terrorist financing laws are contained in two statutes: the Criminal Code and the Terrorist Financing Act.  Under the Criminal Code, it is “an offence to knowingly deal with any property or provide or facilitate any financial or related service for any terrorist activity or any terrorist group.”

Legal provisions apply to reporting entities, including banks, financial institutions and credit unions. This week, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced government’s invocation of the never-before-implemented Emergencies Act. 

“The government is directing financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved with the blockades and report them to the RCMP or CSIS. As of today, a bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order.”

We draw a conclusion: the Trudeau government has designated the Ottawa protestors as terrorists. If this were not the case, the freezing of personal bank accounts could be considered a breach of the law.

Is it fair and reasonable to place the truckers, their children, and their children’s bouncy castles on a similar level to those plotting to bomb Parliament?

If one didn’t know better, one might draw an ominous conclusion: Justin Trudeau has taken anti-terrorism laws intended for foreign terror organizations, and unleashed them on law-abiding Canadian citizens.

You know what media call this? They categorize it under the term “Liberalism.” Cultural Action Party has alternate thoughts on the matter. We consider the scenario a government attack upon their own people. Away from media obfuscation, this is Justin Trudeau’s post-modern society.

A war against the people as perpetrated by government. But not all people– only those who disagree with government policy. Just as society is structured in communist nations such as China and Cuba.

True or false? The longer Justin Trudeau remains prime minister, the further our country walks down a path to Canada’s conversion to an authoritarian state.

4 thoughts on “Trudeau Turns Canada’s Anti-Terror Laws Against His Own People”

  1. As long as Trudeau throws out our rights and freedoms– which pertain to our human needs, and the flourishing of democracy–he is an outlaw suitable only for the status of jailbird, and certainly not as prime minister.

    Justin’s father, Pierre, was right about not wanting to include the notwithstanding clause in the constitution. Justin has never justified his handling of the situation the last two years with facts, statistics and science, although he claims that he has.

    The maintenance of our freedom of choice is mandatory, not optional, or negotiable.

    Reply
  2. This scenario were living in, the collective nightmare we can’t seem to shake, when considering the amount of time it has occurred, has become permanent (in a sence) no matter what happens from this point.

    After two years, people are forever changed, even if our “so called rights” (temporary privileges) were returned this instant, the scars still remain. The generation of young people, altered and influenced at critical points of their development, permanently.

    Similar to those who lived through the great depression, many of whom never trusted a bank again (keeping all their money’s,literally under their beds), we must never forget what we have experienced, this can and will happen again, as soon as they decide to apply the lessons they have learned from this… operation.

    Reply
  3. Should a nation be allowed unilaterally declare a person a terrorist without due course of law. I may can understand it if this applies to non-citizens but citizens ought to be immune to such decrees the person has never committed a violent act and has no criminal record. The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the citizen but on the State.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

*

code