Bureaucratic arrogance and Power Grabbing: Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette provides a new definition of a national security threat after failing to meet thresholds under the CSIS Act.
“What was being seen in other parts of the world were protests with trucks with Canadian flags on them. The PM was getting questions.”
In other words, Justin and his government lackeys looked bad in the eyes of their globalists betters, whom they wished to impress.
A Ceausescu moment on a civilizational scale is long overdue.
It is painfully clear that the Freedom Convoy was not a “national security threat” but a national embarrassment. So the bullies in the federal government changed the rules and beat Canadians up.
Documents tabled at the inquiry this week show CSIS director David Vigneault warned cabinet on Feb. 13 that his agency determined that “there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada”, as defined by the CSIS Act, in the Freedom Convoy protests.
But Charette and PCO deputy clerk Nathalie Drouin told the inquiry Friday that in the government’s view, even though CSIS didn’t find a specific threat within the Freedom Convoy, it considered protests across the country as a whole constituted a threat worthy of the Emergencies Act.
Janice Charette told the inquiry her department considered Freedom Convoy protests across the country a national security threat, despite the fact CSIS never found one
No tactics were beyond ethical concern to stop the protests, including blocking cell phones, shutting down gas stations & using the EmergencyAct.
Bureaucrats like this are petty tyrants that must be punished with their purported political leaders.
Top federal bureaucrat ordered staff to 'leave no stone unturned' to find ways to end protests https://archive.ph/KdII7
Excerpts, Testimony at the Emergencies Act Inquiry, Questioning of Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette, November 18, 2022.
-----------------------------
Posted for educative purposes under THE FAIR USE NOTICE: These Videos may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." Disclaimer: 17 Notwithstanding the Provisions of Sections 17 U.S.C. @ 106 and 17 U.S.C. @ 106A, the Fair Use of a Copyrighted work for Educational Purposes- Not For Profit- Non-Commercial.
