Wesley, you seem to fall on the "big up" side of the Convoy. Where the Convoy presented an actual threat to the governance, economy and peace of Canada. Fair enough. You live in Ottawa and, while your excellent work which I have followed for years, likely gives you access to intelligence estimates the rest of us are not privy to, it also smacks of seeing the Convoy through the legacy media lens.
Scary guys with beards and Big Trucks, Big Trucks, had a street party in Ottawa and at a couple of border crossings, bouncy castles and BBQs. If this is a threat to the Canadian State we have a rather serious problem.
The fact is that those bearded guys, with a few excavators, which they own and know how to operate, could close every border crossing, every airport and every port in under two hours. (A fact which the RCMP saboteurs at Coutts who disabled the excavators knew all too well). This Convoy was uniformly peaceful. I suspect the next, if it happens, will not be.
Of course the gov't should have talked to the Convoy. Informally, as the interim leader of the Opposition, Candace Bergman did.
But the Trudeau gov't's lust for a Jan 6 event over rode common sense. These were "domestic terrorists" financed by Americans, organized by Russians who tried to set an apartment building on fire. All false claims but all promoted by the CBC and echoed by the Government of Canada.
The Convoy came to Ottawa to be heard. Citizens have that right. It's in the Charter. A smart government would have heard them.
About a dozen years ago, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court, had to deal with an aboriginal blockade of a national rail line near Sarnia. There was no genuine land claim involved. It was a purely political gesture, designed to attract attention in Ottawa; and as usual, the people who were being targeted (a railway and its customers), had nothing to do with the dispute, even though they were both losing a lot of money. Because - as is now customary - the police were refusing to enforce an injunction that had been issued in order to bring the unlawfulness to an end.
This is what Judge D.M. Brown had to say about the situation at the time:
With all due respect to the Sarnia Police, local police agencies cannot ignore judicial orders under the guise of contemplating how best to use their tactical discretion. Such an approach would have the practical effect of neutering court orders. It is not the purpose of a court order simply to initiate talks or consultations between the police and those whom the court has found to have breached the law. A court order is not one amongst several chips to be played in an ongoing contest between the police and transgressors of legal rights. On the contrary, a court order is intended to initiate the process of bringing unlawful conduct to an end in a short period of time so that the harm which the court has found to be irreparable is brought to an end. [See: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Plain et al. [2012] 114 O.R. (3d) 27 [2012] ONSC 7356]
Once upon a time, long ago, that was both “the law” and the “social expectation” – as it still is in respect of regulating picketing and labour disputes. But that is not the general case any more. Instead, the property and civil rights of citizens and businesses, can now be held hostage by virtually any grievance group that is sufficiently determined to mount a blockade; while, in the meantime, we are told, again and again, that police have an unreviewable discretion to enforce the law, or not, as they see fit.
Regardless the damage that is being caused to other interests, and also, so it seems, despite the Orders of Judges, whom the police believe they are free to ignore.
Thus, it is solemnly intoned, that no one (not even Judges?) must interfere with, or direct, how police do their jobs, (or don’t) because that would be to “politicize” law enforcement – as if non-enforcement were not a wholly political choice!
So Ottawa becomes like Caledonia. Only bigger. And “law enforcement” becomes a laughable misnomer - an oxymoron.
In the result, what was once once regarded as the ordinary “rule of law” and the expectations of civil society, have now been routinely abandoned in favour of the rule of the mob; and what used to be considered the property and “civil rights” of citizens have now become just matters for “negotiation” with the protesters – who, these days, can even count on having cheerleaders in Parliament, where talk is cheap and the established currency is hypocrisy. There is no law; only politics.
Thus, the reality, today, is that if the protesters camp out in your neighbourhood, or take over your local park, or block a bridge or a street, or a rail line, or impede access to a public institution, citizens have no assurance that it will be brought to a timely end. Nor will they necessarily have effective remedies if their interests are affected or ignored. Even if a former Chief Justice of Canada writes a scolding letter to the Globe and Mail!
For example, are the workers and the businesses in the Windsor area, going to be compensated for the unlawful interference with millions of dollars worth of cross-border economic activity? Are the citizens and the businesses of Ottawa going to be compensated for the unlawful nuisance to which they were undeniably subjected? Will the miscreants ever have to make restitution? We’ll see; but I doubt it, because obstruction and intransigence works.
And for that reason, I suspect that we will to see quite a lot more of this kind of thing. Only the locations, and the placards, and the “causes” will change. Because, all that has really happened here, is that populists have adopted the obstructive methods of progressives and aboriginals, and they have learned, like their predecessors, that they can do so with relative impunity. And that is a recipe for imitation and repetition.
An intriguing idea for an anthology. I had hoped to encourage others to write reflections on the Rouleau commission report as guest contributors to this substack. Maybe I will go back to twisting some arms.
I followed the Rouleau Commission and read the excerpts of Wells' book. I, too, wish someone would delve deeper into the forces -- organizational and funding -- that got this convoy rolling and sustained it. I.e., What and who are the connections to the 2019 United We Roll convoy? What are the partisan Conservative connections, as most of the convoy rhetoric was focused against PMJT rather than provincial health authorities? Who is Tamara Lich: how does a political neophyte raise millions and become a leader of this scale of protest? (Hint: she was trained/mentored by former Calgary-area MP Jay Hill, Reform-CPC-Maverick Party, former Harper Govt Whip-turned- Western separatist, with close connections to petroleum industry). Did the AB oilpatch pounce on an opportunity to channel anti-vaxxers (joining AB oil workers with ON and QC) to whip up Trudeau grievances in service to their main project of delaying/resisting Liberal decarbonization policies? What role was played by Christian activists, e.g., anti-abortion Catholics in southwestern ON and QC, antivax protestant sects (see Mennonites of AB who refuse measles vaccines)? Note: CBC Radio's Front Burner interviewed some women cooking and doing laundry at the convoy basecamp at Coventry, and they were all motivated by the issue of abortion. What was the role of religious convoy supporters, as they reenacted the 7 laps of the Walls of Jericho next to weed-infused hottubs and dance parties? It's so deeply Canadian naive to think these disparate groups were simply disgruntled, well-intentioned people. That's what the Ottawa Police thought! Of course many, if not most, were indeed that. I witnessed all of them, as I live near the occupied zone. My son's high school, in the zone, was closed for a day, right after reopening from lockdown, such was the concern over threats to student safety. The stockpile of fuel tanks in Confed Park was like a bomb next to the school. There were intimidating thugs (biker gangs, we learned later) who fulfilled security at Rideau/Sussex. There were poor families walking across the bridge from Hull. There were partyers. There were homeless getting free meals. But who were the behind-the-scene organizers, the ones nobody saw? Who is the SK man who paid for flights? Who is paying frontwoman Lich, desperate or gullible enough to take the fall? This may have been a highly organized political and partisan operation, designed to attack the Lib govt and its climate change policies. It's certainly a wake-up call for our security institutions, if not for most Canadians who are not being told the whole story. So many questions remain unanswered.
I found the article by Paul Wells questionable. It did not really cover much of the funding from USA sources, Dis and Mis information online, some of which was being pushed by Russia. How much did the foreign owned press contribute. The convoy leadership called for a take over of the government. They called for violence against specific MP's and the PM none of this ever really was investigated. Why has Prime Minister Ford not been held to account his failures? Did he not swear allegiance to Queen and country? etc.
I found Wells’ article intriguing but after reading your comment it seems over-optimistic to expect one observer to cover all aspects of the events. It cries out for an ANTHOLOGY, with contributors covering those aspects which Wells missed, and maybe even contributions (Rashomon-like) from the convoy participants themselves. That research paper you mentioned, with a few additional contributors?Publishing opportunity going begging here!
Wesley, you seem to fall on the "big up" side of the Convoy. Where the Convoy presented an actual threat to the governance, economy and peace of Canada. Fair enough. You live in Ottawa and, while your excellent work which I have followed for years, likely gives you access to intelligence estimates the rest of us are not privy to, it also smacks of seeing the Convoy through the legacy media lens.
Scary guys with beards and Big Trucks, Big Trucks, had a street party in Ottawa and at a couple of border crossings, bouncy castles and BBQs. If this is a threat to the Canadian State we have a rather serious problem.
The fact is that those bearded guys, with a few excavators, which they own and know how to operate, could close every border crossing, every airport and every port in under two hours. (A fact which the RCMP saboteurs at Coutts who disabled the excavators knew all too well). This Convoy was uniformly peaceful. I suspect the next, if it happens, will not be.
Of course the gov't should have talked to the Convoy. Informally, as the interim leader of the Opposition, Candace Bergman did.
But the Trudeau gov't's lust for a Jan 6 event over rode common sense. These were "domestic terrorists" financed by Americans, organized by Russians who tried to set an apartment building on fire. All false claims but all promoted by the CBC and echoed by the Government of Canada.
The Convoy came to Ottawa to be heard. Citizens have that right. It's in the Charter. A smart government would have heard them.
About a dozen years ago, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court, had to deal with an aboriginal blockade of a national rail line near Sarnia. There was no genuine land claim involved. It was a purely political gesture, designed to attract attention in Ottawa; and as usual, the people who were being targeted (a railway and its customers), had nothing to do with the dispute, even though they were both losing a lot of money. Because - as is now customary - the police were refusing to enforce an injunction that had been issued in order to bring the unlawfulness to an end.
This is what Judge D.M. Brown had to say about the situation at the time:
With all due respect to the Sarnia Police, local police agencies cannot ignore judicial orders under the guise of contemplating how best to use their tactical discretion. Such an approach would have the practical effect of neutering court orders. It is not the purpose of a court order simply to initiate talks or consultations between the police and those whom the court has found to have breached the law. A court order is not one amongst several chips to be played in an ongoing contest between the police and transgressors of legal rights. On the contrary, a court order is intended to initiate the process of bringing unlawful conduct to an end in a short period of time so that the harm which the court has found to be irreparable is brought to an end. [See: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Plain et al. [2012] 114 O.R. (3d) 27 [2012] ONSC 7356]
Once upon a time, long ago, that was both “the law” and the “social expectation” – as it still is in respect of regulating picketing and labour disputes. But that is not the general case any more. Instead, the property and civil rights of citizens and businesses, can now be held hostage by virtually any grievance group that is sufficiently determined to mount a blockade; while, in the meantime, we are told, again and again, that police have an unreviewable discretion to enforce the law, or not, as they see fit.
Regardless the damage that is being caused to other interests, and also, so it seems, despite the Orders of Judges, whom the police believe they are free to ignore.
Thus, it is solemnly intoned, that no one (not even Judges?) must interfere with, or direct, how police do their jobs, (or don’t) because that would be to “politicize” law enforcement – as if non-enforcement were not a wholly political choice!
So Ottawa becomes like Caledonia. Only bigger. And “law enforcement” becomes a laughable misnomer - an oxymoron.
In the result, what was once once regarded as the ordinary “rule of law” and the expectations of civil society, have now been routinely abandoned in favour of the rule of the mob; and what used to be considered the property and “civil rights” of citizens have now become just matters for “negotiation” with the protesters – who, these days, can even count on having cheerleaders in Parliament, where talk is cheap and the established currency is hypocrisy. There is no law; only politics.
Thus, the reality, today, is that if the protesters camp out in your neighbourhood, or take over your local park, or block a bridge or a street, or a rail line, or impede access to a public institution, citizens have no assurance that it will be brought to a timely end. Nor will they necessarily have effective remedies if their interests are affected or ignored. Even if a former Chief Justice of Canada writes a scolding letter to the Globe and Mail!
For example, are the workers and the businesses in the Windsor area, going to be compensated for the unlawful interference with millions of dollars worth of cross-border economic activity? Are the citizens and the businesses of Ottawa going to be compensated for the unlawful nuisance to which they were undeniably subjected? Will the miscreants ever have to make restitution? We’ll see; but I doubt it, because obstruction and intransigence works.
And for that reason, I suspect that we will to see quite a lot more of this kind of thing. Only the locations, and the placards, and the “causes” will change. Because, all that has really happened here, is that populists have adopted the obstructive methods of progressives and aboriginals, and they have learned, like their predecessors, that they can do so with relative impunity. And that is a recipe for imitation and repetition.
An intriguing idea for an anthology. I had hoped to encourage others to write reflections on the Rouleau commission report as guest contributors to this substack. Maybe I will go back to twisting some arms.
I followed the Rouleau Commission and read the excerpts of Wells' book. I, too, wish someone would delve deeper into the forces -- organizational and funding -- that got this convoy rolling and sustained it. I.e., What and who are the connections to the 2019 United We Roll convoy? What are the partisan Conservative connections, as most of the convoy rhetoric was focused against PMJT rather than provincial health authorities? Who is Tamara Lich: how does a political neophyte raise millions and become a leader of this scale of protest? (Hint: she was trained/mentored by former Calgary-area MP Jay Hill, Reform-CPC-Maverick Party, former Harper Govt Whip-turned- Western separatist, with close connections to petroleum industry). Did the AB oilpatch pounce on an opportunity to channel anti-vaxxers (joining AB oil workers with ON and QC) to whip up Trudeau grievances in service to their main project of delaying/resisting Liberal decarbonization policies? What role was played by Christian activists, e.g., anti-abortion Catholics in southwestern ON and QC, antivax protestant sects (see Mennonites of AB who refuse measles vaccines)? Note: CBC Radio's Front Burner interviewed some women cooking and doing laundry at the convoy basecamp at Coventry, and they were all motivated by the issue of abortion. What was the role of religious convoy supporters, as they reenacted the 7 laps of the Walls of Jericho next to weed-infused hottubs and dance parties? It's so deeply Canadian naive to think these disparate groups were simply disgruntled, well-intentioned people. That's what the Ottawa Police thought! Of course many, if not most, were indeed that. I witnessed all of them, as I live near the occupied zone. My son's high school, in the zone, was closed for a day, right after reopening from lockdown, such was the concern over threats to student safety. The stockpile of fuel tanks in Confed Park was like a bomb next to the school. There were intimidating thugs (biker gangs, we learned later) who fulfilled security at Rideau/Sussex. There were poor families walking across the bridge from Hull. There were partyers. There were homeless getting free meals. But who were the behind-the-scene organizers, the ones nobody saw? Who is the SK man who paid for flights? Who is paying frontwoman Lich, desperate or gullible enough to take the fall? This may have been a highly organized political and partisan operation, designed to attack the Lib govt and its climate change policies. It's certainly a wake-up call for our security institutions, if not for most Canadians who are not being told the whole story. So many questions remain unanswered.
I found the article by Paul Wells questionable. It did not really cover much of the funding from USA sources, Dis and Mis information online, some of which was being pushed by Russia. How much did the foreign owned press contribute. The convoy leadership called for a take over of the government. They called for violence against specific MP's and the PM none of this ever really was investigated. Why has Prime Minister Ford not been held to account his failures? Did he not swear allegiance to Queen and country? etc.
I found Wells’ article intriguing but after reading your comment it seems over-optimistic to expect one observer to cover all aspects of the events. It cries out for an ANTHOLOGY, with contributors covering those aspects which Wells missed, and maybe even contributions (Rashomon-like) from the convoy participants themselves. That research paper you mentioned, with a few additional contributors?Publishing opportunity going begging here!
Agree, I also found Wells article unsatisfying
“Hey! Me and my gang wanna kick you in the nuts. Come on down and we’ll talk about it. “
Thanks for the close read. I appreciate the effort.