Canadian Authorities Lie to Justify Violence Against Peaceful Protesters.

There have been a number of live YouTube streams showing the protests in Ottawa. Peaceful protests showing the lies of the Canadian Government and the Local Police and Council Authorities.

The first lie was that Nazi sympathisers were part of the protest. Not true. The guy with a flag with Swastikas on it was actually protesting against the government and the Swastikas were to show that the government were the same as the Nazi regime in Germany. He wasn't a Nazi sympathiser.

But that didn't stop Trudeau and his government misrepresenting the truth and lying about that flag and it's actual purpose.

Then the government lied about the war memorial in Ottawa being desecrated by the protesters. Yet hundreds of hours of YouTube live streams in which people deliberately checked the memorial showed no desecration. If putting flowers and wreaths on a war memorial is desecration, you'd better charge Her Majesty the Queen, because she does it every year and no-one stops her vandalous act.

The government put a barrier around the undesecrated memorial to "protect" it from the fictitious threat.

Eventually war veterans removed the fence to gain access and properly pay their respects to their fallen comrades. They held a prayer ceremony on the memorial. The same veterans that were violently removed from the memorial. One having his leg broken in the process.

The second lie regarding the war memorial was that the fence had been removed recklessly, when in fact the veterans had contacted the local town council and had mutually agreed to remove the fence. The Canadian Government spun it like the fences were torn down maliciously in an attempt to further desecrate the memorial. 

Then the lies about the protestors acting violently. Except they weren't. We saw plenty of violence from the Police though. Assaults with Batons, Protesters being kneed in the body when on the ground being cuffed, Assault rifles used to smash windows and to rifle-butt protesters on the ground, pepper spray in the eyes of protesters at point blank range, stun grenades, tear gas and tear gas canisters being shot at protesters deliberately also at point blank range. A number of the above against the police's own regulations and rules of engagement. But the protesters are in the wrong supposedly.

Then we get to the worst lie of all: the use of horses to trample protesters. Except the Police deny trampling protesters despite video and photographic evidence. The Police going as far as to say that the pictures were photoshopped, then saying that a bicycle was thrown at the horses. Except both were lies. The pictures and video evidence show the pictures weren't photoshopped and the "bicycle" involved was the disability aid of an elderly woman that was trampled by the horses. The horses actually trampled her and her walker.

Now you may say what was a disabled elderly woman doing in a violent protest? Well, it wasn't violent on the protester side. The woman was quite safe until the point the RCMP charged the crowd with their horses.

So two lies about a single incident. 

Despite all the provocation from the Police, the protesters in the main were passive and compliant. I have yet to see a report of an injury of a Police officer, but I have seen several injuries of protesters. Yet another nail in the coffin of the lie that the protests were violent.

When one side (The Police) continuously lies to justify their (unjust) actions and the other side is injured, then you know who is in the wrong, who is the aggressor in Ottawa.

I have a feeling that the Emergencies act will be passed by Trudeau and his cronies today in the Canadian Parliament. I expect those MPs opposing the deployment of the cat will not be able to muster enough votes against it. Therefore I expect Canadian citizens to receive more violence, more seizure of assets and more restrictions on their freedoms.

Not just the protesters, but innocent bystanders, people that may have provided financial, moral or physical support to the protesters. All are fair game in the eyes of Trudeau. And I'm pretty sure he won't stop there. There seems to be an emerging narrative that the protests are being funded and coerced from outside Canada. Well sure, the funding from ordinary folk around the world that can see the injustices of Trudeau's actions are providing funds to the various funding websites, but this is not Russiagate style state actor collusion. But that won't stop Trudeau pushing that idea.

I expect a nationwide truck strike in Canada in the next week. I just wonder how Trudeau will react. Will he use the emergencies act to compel truckers to work? Will he threaten freezing of their bank accounts if they don't work?

We'll see. 

But dark days for Canada are ahead I fear.

Afghanistan and What Ties it To International Terror.

I've posted in the past about Afghanistan and the start of Operation "Enduring Freedom" and UK/US Special Forces aligning with the Afghan Northern Alliance.  Also the night of the televised set-piece air-drop invasion of Afghanistan and the actions that night that were not televised.

I've posted about an assault by special forces on a compound that same night and the surprisingly stiff resistance that Western Troops came across that night. A compound that intelligence had suggested had a large group of Afghan leaders in situ. All in the same place at the same time.

I've also hinted previously that that assault was a major contribution to the problems we endured in Afghanistan itself and the Muslim Terror threat we have here at home.

I've posted how the names of the countries involved in Op-EF almost exactly correlates with the countries that have endured terror attacks at home. It's also interesting that after I pointed that out, there have been fewer attacks. To the threat analysts out there: you're welcome.

Anyhoo, why do you think, some wind-blown compound in Afghanistan has such an impact on our war with terror.

It involves the people that were there that night. I believe there were Gulf-State nationals in that compound, from Saudi Arabia, Dubai and the UAE. Those nationals were at the compound for whatever reason, but you can bet your bottom dollar it wasn't for anything beneficial to the West. I assume they were there to discuss funding more extremist Taliban activity in the face of the Northern Alliance successes at the time and possibly buying property in Pakistan to allow the movement of senior Taliban officials across the border. 

Now, I further assume that the families of those people have sought revenge against the West ever since that night. The people we're talking about have almost limitless pockets and are able to transfer money around the world in furtherance of their terrorist activities.

Because you have to ask how the people that commit these acts are getting their money. Where, for example does a man get enough money for air fare to America in order to take hostages? I'll also just mention that how does a man referred to prevent and with a criminal record get a plane ticket without triggering the intelligence authorities in the UK and then how does he get through US immigration?

As with all of these cases, there are so many coincidences and  unanswered questions. I'm sure the intelligence services have the answers.

But there remains several questions. For instance, if we know of the existence of these funding networks from countries in the Gulf, why do we class these countries as allies if they haven't closed down these funding networks? 

I'm also convinced the reason the West pulled out of Afghanistan so hastily was connected with the Gulf State conduit. America is once again dependent of Gulf State energy products after being self-sufficient for a number of years. 

Yet another legacy of the Biden administration.

Canada on the Brink of Tyranny.

So in response to a bunch of Canadian truckers parking up in various inconvenient places around the country, Justin Trudeau has called for the enablement of the Emergencies Act. An act usually only used in times of War, or other serious National Emergency.

I don't think a bunch of truckers blocking roads is enough to allow enablement of the Act.

If I were an opposition MP, I would be asking Justin Trudeau some difficult questions:

What reasoning is there for Requesting Enablement of the Emergencies Act?

If the Government cite violence, what proof do the Government have of widespread violent acts?

Request the Government to supply such proof to Parliament.

Ask Trudeau how long the Act will be in Force for. Is it truly time limited, or is this as limited as the Covid-19 measures that have lasted two years?

To be blunt, the opposition in the Canadian Parliament should vote en masse to refuse the enablement of the act. At least they will have clear consciences when the government-sponsored violence against the protesters occurs. Because it will occur unless Trudeau excessive use of government force is checked. 

And be under no illusion: closing the bank accounts of supporters, denying them the basics of life itself IS violence. Impounding trucks and removing insurance IS violence. If Trudeau says that words are violence, then these direct acts are even more violent than the nasty words his snowflake mind gets hung up about.

So, to the Trudeau government: What justifies these violent acts against Canadian Citizens?

What crimes have they committed that are so heinous that they have their assets seized by the government? Even murderers and rapists, the worst crimes imaginable don't have their bank accounts seized. 

So to Trudeau directly: Is this just petty revenge? Is this just childish lashing out against someone that won't listen to you? Is this like the parent striking a child that is naughty and will not listen?

Because if it is, then you are not a leader. A leader acts like an adult and responsible adults do not strike children.

To ordinary Citizens of Canada, I would ask: Why is the Prime Minister invoking an act that affects the whole of Canada for less than 100 trucks parked in Ottawa? Why is he bringing in a law that affects you to deal with a small protest? Why can't the protest be dealt with locally?

Ordinary Citizens need to be writing to their MPs, rejecting the implementation of the act. Trudeau has for for instigating supposed temporary measures and keeping them in place indefinitely. He has form for brining in supposedly limited, targeted legislation but then broadening the scope of such legislation. 

Just look at vaccine mandates: initially for health workers where you could see a legitimate (if unscientifically proven) reason, which was then applied to truckers with absolutely no scientific or immediately obvious reason. There was no outbreak related to truckers that required extra measures. So why did Trudeau's government instigate vaccine mandates for truckers and start all of this? 

Do Canadians think that Trudeau won't widen the remit of the act once he has dealt with the truckers? Will he start to go for political opponents? Will he freeze their bank accounts?