The Truth About the Trucker Convoy

[Goddess]

The article argues that the Freedom Convoy was not an insurrection but a legitimate protest against government overreach. It refutes claims that the convoy was violent, extremist, or attempted to overthrow the government, highlighting inconsistencies in media and political narratives. The author criticizes the use of emergency powers, freezing of bank accounts, and the treatment of convoy leaders like Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, calling it an authoritarian overreach. The piece also challenges accusations of foreign funding, Nazi affiliations, and business disruptions, citing legal rulings and intelligence reports that found no security threats. Ultimately, the article warns that labeling protests as insurrections sets a dangerous precedent for democracy.

Read the article here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158630451

Edited March 11 by Greg
Edit post, fixed title

[WestCanMan]

Re: FB...

When Elon bought Twitter and ended the left's stranglehold on every narrative under the sun, hard-core leftards ditched and moved to FB, and it seems as though they brought their bots with them.

If there's a post about Poilievre on FB and someone says "He poops his pants" it gets 300 likes, and that never used to be the case. 

So, in preparation for this election, the leftard disinformation network is just getting to work. 

[ExFlyer]

The truth, according to that one writer. LOL

So, what exactly was incorrect about the so called "viral social media post"?

Substack is an American site that publishes news articles, essays, opinion pieces, niche expertise, podcasts, discussion threads, and videos that allows anyone and everyone to write what they want...sort of like ..."social media" LOL

Anyway, article (?) is as valid as any of the biased posts here...argumentative and without proof or merit.

Edited March 11 by ExFlyer

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So, what exactly was incorrect about the so called "viral social media post"?

Everything. That was the whole point of the substack article.

If you read the 'viral post', you read the substack article, and lived in Canada during covid then you would know that the substack article was 100% correct.

The 'viral post says:

• The “Freedom Convoy” Was No Love Fest—It Was an Attack on Democracy

You know that's a lie. The Freedom Convoy had nothing to do with preventing any democratic processes. 

The government's covid protocols were unnecessary and unsupported by real-world statistics or any form of science.

Our government literally forced people to take the jab after we already knew that the jab offered them no necessary protections - they simply did not need it and had nothing to gain from it - and it didn't prevent them from spreading covid at all. 

Protesting against our government's draconian travesty was not an attack on democracy, E-F, and no legitimate adult thinks that it was.

• Conservatives are at it again—rewriting history, playing the victim,

FYI there's no rewriting of history going on, EF. Can you explain what was lied about? 

Nothing was lied about, and there are millions of victims. There are people who lost their jobs because they refused to take to jab, there are people who took the jab and were injured by it, there are people who were discriminated against for not taking the pseudovaccine, there are people whose bank accounts were frozen for donating money to a peaceful protest, and millions of people were called racists and misogynists by the PMOC for no reason at all.

All of the above was done based on the advice of one Mr Fauci, who funded the creation of a bat coronavirus in the Wuhan lab and then pretended that the only likely source of covid was the wetmarket. If you knew that Fauci had helped create a covid-19 virus before Jan 2020, would you have believed him when he said "Hey look! There goes Elcovid!"?

• and now trying to equate Justin Trudeau’s criticism of Vladimir Putin with their so-called “Freedom Convoy.” It would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
  Let’s set the record straight: The Freedom Convoy was anything but peaceful. It wasn’t a protest—it was an occupation that terrorized Ottawa for weeks, blockaded border crossings, and emboldened a far-right movement that openly called for the overthrow of Canada’s democratically elected government.
  And now, Conservatives want to pretend they were just a bunch of friendly, freedom-loving patriots? Love fest, my arse.
  What Really Happened in Ottawa
  While convoy supporters still push their revisionist fantasy, here’s what actually happened on the ground:

  • • Downtown Ottawa residents were harassed and terrorized. Protesters blared horns 24/7 for weeks, making life unbearable for anyone who lived or worked in the city. Families with small children, seniors, and essential workers had to flee their own homes just to get some relief.

   
   

The above is chock-full of blatant lies and BS that everyone in Canada now knows to be false. 

• there was no call to overthrow the gov't
• the Freedom Convoy didn't break anything, didn't threaten anyone, hell they didn't even leave an empty pop can on the ground. But they were in the business of overthrowing the gov't? How ret4rded are you, EF? Are you really gonna say that you believe that?
• No Ottawa residents were harassed or terrorized. None.
• Horns did not blare 24/7 for weeks, that's an utter lie
• no one had to flee their homes because of the Freedom Convoy. That's not even an old lie, she just made that up now
• • Businesses were forced to shut down. Local shops, including grocery stores and pharmacies, had to close because of threats and intimidation. Some business owners were physically assaulted when they refused to serve protesters.

  d

Ironically the piece of garbage who wrote that just referenced "revisionist history lessons" before all that crap came out of her mouth, and you didn't even notice 🤣

• • Workers were assaulted for wearing masks. Convoy participants spat at, insulted, and attacked service workers simply for following public health guidelines.

   
   

More total BS. That FB post is just a litany of fabrications and slander, and you're gonna sit there and pretend to not notice even one lie?

• • Nazi flags, Confederate flags, and hate symbols were on full display. This wasn’t about “freedom.” The convoy harbored extremists with deeply disturbing agendas, including ties to white nationalist groups and violent militias.
   

Now she has gone full ret4rd. That is an absolute treasure trove of debunked lies and you know that, EF. 

Propagandists in the CBC even wrote about Nazi and Confederate flags, but somehow didn't manage to capture any of them on film. 

 

I could do the rest of the article but that's not necessary. Everything up to that point has been nothing but lies. We're good here. 

[ExFlyer]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Everything. That was the whole point of the substack article.

.... We're good here. 

Well, your diatribe is just another opinion piece. just as substack is because you did not like the post LOL

Fact is, the supposed leaders were arrested and charged and King was sentenced. The others will follow.

That is not opinion, it is fact LOL

Ya gotta get over it LOL. They got their due. 

It amazes me how many opinions of the truckers fiasco are from people that do not live in Ottawa and did not experience it first hand.

Edited March 12 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

On 3/11/2025 at 7:30 AM, ExFlyer said:

The truth, according to that one writer. LOL

So, what exactly was incorrect about the so called "viral social media post"?

Substack is an American site that publishes news articles, essays, opinion pieces, niche expertise, podcasts, discussion threads, and videos that allows anyone and everyone to write what they want...sort of like ..."social media" LOL

Anyway, article (?) is as valid as any of the biased posts here...argumentative and without proof or merit.

Actually that's pretty much been substantiated by a judge. It was a legitimate protest.

I noticed you can't refute the article or any of its points so you're attacking the source. How very leftist of you    

15 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Fact is, the supposed leaders were arrested and charged and King was sentenced. The others will follow.

 

But none of them were charged with illegal protesting or anything that would suggest the protest itself wasn't legitimate.

All across Canada when protests are considered to be unlawful and injunction is received from the courts ordering the protesters to stop. Can you show where that happened in this case? No? A protest so bad that it required the use of the emergency act and nobody actually got an injunction to stop it or declare it unlawful?

 

 

Hmmmmmm

[Nefarious Banana]

A real leader, a real man would have met with them, listened to their concerns, and tried to resolve this issue.

Instead, Trudeau got yet another case of 'convenient covid' . . . hid out, and sniped with his ignorant distastful comments.  Then enacted the Emergency Act, and all the bully tactics of a truly weak little man.  

ExFlyer and his ilk are what's so wrong with Canada . . . stand for nothing, never true to themselves.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

A real leader, a real man would have met with them, listened to their concerns, and tried to resolve this issue.

Instead, Trudeau got yet another case of 'convenient covid' . . . hid out, and sniped with his ignorant distastful comments.  Then enacted the Emergency Act, and all the bully tactics of a truly weak little man.  

ExFlyer and his ilk are what's so wrong with Canada . . . stand for nothing, never true to themselves.

Agreed. Whether or not he thought their concerns were legitimate he absolutely should have met with him. Instead not only did he fail to do so but ridiculed those who did. He was comfortably the worst prime minister we've ever had

[ExFlyer]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Actually that's pretty much been substantiated by a judge. It was a legitimate protest.

I noticed you can't refute the article or any of its points so you're attacking the source. How very leftist of you    

But none of them were charged with illegal protesting or anything that would suggest the protest itself wasn't legitimate.

All across Canada when protests are considered to be unlawful and injunction is received from the courts ordering the protesters to stop. Can you show where that happened in this case? No? A protest so bad that it required the use of the emergency act and nobody actually got an injunction to stop it or declare it unlawful?

 

 

Hmmmmmm

Nope, just saying the it was an opinion piece on that the "viral post" and I asked what was incorrect with the viral post.   Got a response that made no sense and did not answer the question.

I never once said they were charged with "illegal protesting". 

They were charged with breaking existing laws. King was charged with " two counts of disobeying a court order and one each of mischief, counselling to commit mischief and counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer.".

 

Hmmmmmm, whatcha talkin about Willis ? LOL

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

 

Hmmmmmm, whatcha talkin about Willis ? LOL

LOL holy 'way back machine' batman!    dyn-o-mite!   

[ExFlyer]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL holy 'way back machine' batman!    dyn-o-mite!   

No kiddin' Eh LOL

[WestCanMan]

On 3/12/2025 at 11:47 PM, CdnFox said:

He was comfortably the worst prime minister we've ever had

Rosemary Barton is gonna come crashing through your door:

[PIK]

On 3/13/2025 at 2:47 AM, CdnFox said:

Agreed. Whether or not he thought their concerns were legitimate he absolutely should have met with him. Instead not only did he fail to do so but ridiculed those who did. He was comfortably the worst prime minister we've ever had

Yup, he could have ended so quickly.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Rosemary Barton is gonna come crashing through your door:

I was told vampires and the undead couldn't enter without your permission.....

2 hours ago, PIK said:

Yup, he could have ended so quickly.

Their mistake was not burning a Canadian flag and saying death to Canada while claiming to be Muslim

[Goddess]

On 3/14/2025 at 6:56 PM, WestCanMan said:

Rosemary Barton is gonna come crashing through your door:

 

Lib supporters are calling for her to be fired for "disrespecting" Carney.

New enemy of the Left - notoriously conservative newscaster, Rosemary Barton. 🤣

And in the US, previous darling of the green agenda EV movement, Elon Musk, they're burning down Tesla dealerships, vandalizing and setting Teslas on fire.

It's interesting watching the Left eat themselves.

Thank you @Greg for fixing my post.

I got busy with life and didn't have time.  Your point is well-taken and I shall do better in the future.

[CouchPotato]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Lib supporters are calling for her to be fired for "disrespecting" Carney.

New enemy of the Left - notoriously conservative newscaster, Rosemary Barton. 🤣

 

Well since they are trying to steal all Poilievre's ideas anyway, maybe now the Liberals will be on board with defunding the CBC.

[BlahTheCanuck]

I'm not sure that the convoy in its entirety was 'violent' or 'extremist', given it was a decentralized movement that included people with a variety of motivations for being there - but the behaviour of the protesters was stupid, deranged, childish, dangerous, retarded and violated multiple laws. The Emergencies Act crackdown and freezing of bank accounts was definitely unjustified, but that doesn't make the behaviour of the protesters right.

Edited March 22 by BlahTheCanuck

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

The Emergencies Act crackdown and freezing of bank accounts was definitely unjustified, but that doesn't make the behaviour of the protesters right.

If that's true, then why didn't any of the governments involved get an injunction against them?

I mean that is the standard practice, you feel a protest is illegal and therefore you go to a judge and get an injunction so that the people are ordered to stop. After that their protest becomes unlawful. But until a judge has ruled that it's just opinion.

The government doesn't get to decide if someone broke a law, the government gets to write laws but it doesn't get to judge the laws.

Angry about them honking late at night and she went to the courts and the court said no problem, hey Convoy no more honking at night. And they stopped it was the end of it.

So if this was so illegal and wrong why did nobody ask a judge to rule that and then tell the Convoy protesters they were violating the law and had to go, like they do in every other single major protest?

[BlahTheCanuck]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If that's true, then why didn't any of the governments involved get an injunction against them?

I mean that is the standard practice, you feel a protest is illegal and therefore you go to a judge and get an injunction so that the people are ordered to stop. After that their protest becomes unlawful. But until a judge has ruled that it's just opinion.

The government doesn't get to decide if someone broke a law, the government gets to write laws but it doesn't get to judge the laws.

Angry about them honking late at night and she went to the courts and the court said no problem, hey Convoy no more honking at night. And they stopped it was the end of it.

So if this was so illegal and wrong why did nobody ask a judge to rule that and then tell the Convoy protesters they were violating the law and had to go, like they do in every other single major protest?

There were injunctions issued by judges.

[CdnFox]

Just now, BlahTheCanuck said:

There were injunctions issued by judges.

Oh you mean the one I already mentioned? The one that wasn't brought by a government but was brought by an individual?

I hope you're bringing something to this conversation other then just repeating what I've already said.

And it's worth noting that when the judge ruled that they stopped honking during the hours he required them to. They obey the judge no problem.

But no government at any level ever went to the judge the way this young girl did and got an injunction against the protest declaring it illegal. I mean we do that for almost every other protest.

So if what they were doing was so illegal as you say then why didn't the government go and get an injunction against it?

That has always really bothered me

[CouchPotato]

2 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

There were injunctions issued by judges.

He literally just pointed that out. But there was no injunction against the protest itself.

[BlahTheCanuck]

17 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

He literally just pointed that out. But there was no injunction against the protest itself.

I mean, of course there's not going to be an injunction shutting down an entire protest, because it's not illegal to protest - there are going to be injunctions against specific actions by protesters that violate laws, which is what I was referring to.

[CouchPotato]

7 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

I mean, of course there's not going to be an injunction shutting down an entire protest, because it's not illegal to protest - there are going to be injunctions against specific actions by protesters that violate laws, which is what I was referring to.

Well you can have injunctions to remove protestors. Though I suppose that is usually because they are breaking the law by being on private property. But as CdnFox pointed out if they were doing anything illegal an injunction could have been granted. They did stop the honking. Most large protests are disruptive to some degree, I don't think this one ranked among the worst.

Edited March 22 by CouchPotato

[BlahTheCanuck]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh you mean the one I already mentioned? The one that wasn't brought by a government but was brought by an individual?

I hope you're bringing something to this conversation other then just repeating what I've already said.

And it's worth noting that when the judge ruled that they stopped honking during the hours he required them to. They obey the judge no problem.

But no government at any level ever went to the judge the way this young girl did and got an injunction against the protest declaring it illegal. I mean we do that for almost every other protest.

So if what they were doing was so illegal as you say then why didn't the government go and get an injunction against it?

That has always really bothered me

If there was an injunction issued doesn't that prove there was illegal activity going on?

 

Firstly, the injunction regarding the horns had to be extended from 10 to 60 days of length because it wasn't being complied with. 

 

Secondly, like I said, governments did seek injunctions as well, such as the city of Windsor where the Canada-US border was being blocked and that injunction  was granted.

Edited March 22 by BlahTheCanuck

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

If there was an injunction issued doesn't that prove there was illegal activity going on?

Injunction wasn't about the protest. The injunction was the use of horns after a certain time and before a certain time in the morning. The judge ruled that they could use their horns and Blair them and that this was legitimate protest, but that if they did it all night then it represented an infringement on the rights of Houston enjoyment of the people in the area and therefore offended their rights more than the offense to the right to protest if it was shut down. So he said they weren't allowed to honk their horns at night and they complied

At no point did he rule that there was anything illegal going on in the slightest, he said that they had a right to protest and that the owner had the right to use and enjoyment of their property and that in order to balance the rights of the two individual groups honking would be limited to certain hours

12 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

Firstly, the injunction regarding the horns had to be extended from 10 to 60 days of length because it wasn't being complied with. 

No, it was extended because the protest was extended beyond the original time given for the injuction. Don't make things up 

The article mentioned that it was complied with, but within a few days some were violating that so the judge warned there would be punishments and after that it seems to have worked again, 

And the point is that if someone DID break that injuction they would be found to be in contempt and arrested. 

14 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

Secondly, like I said, governments did get injunctions as well, such as the city of Windsor where the Canada-US border was being blocked and that injunction  was granted.

Nothing to do with the ottawa protest. 

So you're not being honest.  Sure, in OTHER protests in DIFFERENT places they did, but why not here if something illegal was going on. If anything the fact they did it elsewhere and not for this one makes the question even more important. 

 

SO.  Back to the question you've been dodging.  

If what they were doing in ottawa was so illegal, why no injunction? The girl got it for excessive honking. Other protests had that, that IS hte traditional thing to do.  Soooooo... why not?