Freedom Convoy organizer GUILTY of intimidation, could face longer sentence

[00:00:02]Hello and welcome to episode 143 of Not Reserving Judgment, a podcast about the latest intrigues, triumphs, and outrages in Canadian constitutional law. I'm Josh Laos, interim litigation director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and I'm Christine Van, the interim executive director with the CCF. In today's episode, I'm going to tell you about the surprise twist that means billionaire businessman Frank Stronic is no longer guilty of sexual assault after a judge declared a mistrial, but what that means for all the other charges >> and we'll share a bad legal takes of the week where we share a light-hearted look at some legal opinions that didn't quite land. But first, I'm going to tell you about another blockbuster criminal decision that was just overturned.

[00:00:48]And I'm talking about the Ontario Court of Appeal finding that freedom convoy organizer Pat King was guilty of intimidation after all and may get a longer sentence. So, this kind of seems like ancient history now, but back in January 2022, hundreds of transport trucks traveled to Ottawa to protest vaccine mandates in neverending COVID 19 lockdowns. And as we know, the protests got a bit out of hand with some trucks blocking streets near Parliament and some very noisy air truck air horns disturbing the peace intermixed with bouncy castles and many many genuinely peaceful Canadian protesters just waving maple leaves. And this of course was followed by one of the greatest government abuses of power in Canadian history, the use of the Emergencies Act to ban all protests and freeze bank accounts, which is not what I'm going to talk about today. Instead, I'm going to talk about the criminal aspect of this and this new court of appeal decision.

[00:01:46]So, uh listeners will remember that um three convoy leaders have now received criminal convictions for their part in participating in or encouraging the illegal aspects of the protest. And that's tomorrow Lich, Chris Barber, and Pat King. All found guilty of mischief and in some cases other charges. And as we talked about before, the crown wanted uh disturbingly long sentences for this.

[00:02:13]Seven years for Lich, eight for Barber, and 10 for King. And instead, Lich and Barber got 18-month conditional sentences, which means that they'll be serving their sentences at home with the ability to go out for certain things like church, although the crown has appealed that. And Pat King, who is probably the most controversial of the three, actually got the shortest uh sentence in the end. Um he got 12 months conditional sentence last 9 months for the time that he had spent in custody as well as excessive bail conditions. So really 3 months at least that's what the trial judge gave him. But now that sentence is in question and his acquitt on the most serious charge here has been overturned and frankly I'm not all that surprised. So let's get into it. So, the court of appeal decision comes from Justice Pachoko and two others. And Pachoko starts by pointing out that Mr. King had planned on creating gridlock and using truck air horns. Um, and on top of that, he didn't stop after a local judge made abundantly clear that this aspect of the protest was illegal.

[00:03:18]So, Justice Po Pachoko goes through that and he gives some examples of what Pat King did and I'll read through a bit of that. So back on January 12th, 2022, before the convoy boy had even arrived, Pat King was talking about, you know, we have threatened to put transport trucks on a standstill, and that's just the start. We'll put the fear of God in government. Then on January 29th, he said, "We're not moving. We're not leaving. It's all gridlocked." January 31st, he posted, "Every half hour, every 10 minutes, you're blowing horns. Don't forget horns every half hour for 10 minutes." And then on February 7th, which is what after Justice Mlan granted this injunction, making very clear that the horns and the blockading aspect were illegal, he wrote, "We're winning.

[00:04:04]Remember, these people haven't been able to sleep for 10 days. I'm not going to lie, it's pretty hilarious. And now they've put an injunction in there, and now they're asking the for the feds to come and negotiate and get us out of their city. It's working beautiful. It's awesome, guys." And then the next day he wrote, "Stand with us and honk the horns. Let the heavens hear you. I don't give a anymore. It's game on. Let's use those hordes as loud as you can and get to Ottawa now and let's encircle Ottawa.

[00:04:30]And then finally, on the day before the Emergencies Act came down, he instructed his followers, don't leave Ottawa. Don't back your trucks out. Don't leave residential areas. You're good to go.

[00:04:39]Just stand your ground, hold the line.

[00:04:42]So, King, Lynch, and Barbara, like I said, all convicted on multiple charges, including mischief, which is obstructing, interrupting, or interfering with another person's lawful use or enjoyment of property. [snorts] But they were acquitted on intimidation until now. This is what King has now been convicted of. So intimidation is at least in the form of blockading is banned by section 4231G of the criminal code which says it's a crime to wrongfully and without lawful authority for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing among other things block or obstruct a highway. And the trial judge here Justice Hackland had acquitted Mr. king uh because even though he had encouraged and participated in blocking and obstructing highways, the crown had not proved intimidation because in the trial judge's view, intimidation can't be committed when you're having a political protest unless there are threats or acts of violence meant to intimidate. So, Justice Hackland also held that blocking or obstructing a highway for the purpose of pressuring the government could not be undertaken uh for the purpose of compelling another person to do or not do something. So, that element wasn't met and that struck me as odd at the time. And the court of appeal overturned all all of the findings essentially. So, Pachoko notes that the elements of intimidation by blocking a highway are three-fold. The crown has to prove that the accused personally commits aids or abetss. In other words, encourages the conduct described in the intimidation offense, like blocking the highway. The action is done wrongfully and without lawful authority. And the judge here says this doesn't just include things like, you know, trespass or unlawful assembly, but intentionally blocking the highway isn't isn't of itself wrongfully and without authority. Um and third, the prohibited act was undertaken for the specific purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has the right to do or to uh not do something that she has or to do something that she has the right to lawfully abstain from doing. A bit of a mouthful. So here too, the judge says the intent to compel someone to abstain from their lawful use of a public highway is sufficient to satisfy this intent requirement. And so the judge below aired in certain ways. he aired by suggesting that because it was a political protest, it couldn't be intimidation. And Pachoko writes, "No, criminal conduct is not less criminal just because it occurs during a protest." And next, he writes that the judge also aired by reading in essentially a requirement that there be threats of of violence. And he, Justice Pacho, writes with respect by attempting to limit the reach of section 423. In this way, the trial judge moved beyond interpretation and engaged in impermissible legislating. There is no basis in the language of the enactment interpreted in its context for finding that the offense requires proof of threats or acts of violence. And Justice Pachoko also says the trial judge aired by finding that this specific intent requirement necessitates proof of an intention to intimidate individuals.

[00:07:57]uh again because that's just not found in the statute itself. He says blockading a highway is inherently aggressive and potentially violent and designed to intimidate and impede the movement of third parties. And finally, he says it was an error defined that the government of Canada is not a person because section two of the criminal code stipulates that every one person and owner and sim and similar expressions includes her majesty, i.e. the crown, i.e. the government. And so this idea that he wasn't, you know, focused on forcing a person to abstain from doing or or not doing something that they're entitled to do just uh wasn't correct because, you know, he was focused on getting the government to do or not do something. Okay. So then he gets into the sentence and this is where he kind of rasack over the coals. He says, "In opting for this lenient penalty, the trial judge expressed a concern that a harsh sentence could chill political expression. We agree that caution is warranted when sentencing individuals for conduct that could potentially fall within a constitutional zone of protection. However, the conduct in this case far exceeded the bounds of legitimate expression. This was not a peaceful protest that unfortunately grew out of control and was allowed to go on and morph into criminal activity.

[00:09:15]Rather, this and he's talking about for Pat King was a coordinated targeted attack on Ottawa residents aimed at coercing change through highly disruptive criminal conduct. And as the trial judge observed in his judgment, there was overwhelming evidence that even before the freedom convoy, Mr. King had planned to occupy gridlock and cause acute distress to residents, merchants, and workers through the continuous honking of truck horns and other disruptive activities.

[00:09:45]Um, and Mr. King not only incited these activities, he instructed his followers to resist police and ignore courtordered injunctions. This conduct properly characterized was an attack on the rule of law and the democratic principles essential to the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. So, the court's very clear here that purposefully blockading the street and extremely loud truck horns is not peaceful protest. And we've made that point before, too. In fact, in an upcoming paper with UBC law professor Camden Hutchinson, uh I also make this point um that uh the word peaceful in section 2C doesn't cover coers physically coercing other people with excessive noise or blockading roads. You know, it's one thing to dis to have your protest be disruptive, but it's another thing to physically coersse other people and require them to uh engage in self-help if they want to proceed with their own rights here. So, um all of that to say it still wasn't reasonable for the government to enact the emergencies act, which was aimed at blocking all protests. Uh not just the people like Pat King who were breaking the law, but all of these other people who were there peacefully protesting.

[00:10:58]yet that's what they did. And they also went even further uh you know without uh anything resembling a warrant freezing people's bank accounts in the middle of winter which is just going way too far when we have criminal laws like this like these sections that can be used when uh people engage in activity that goes goes too far. So um Christine um this is an interesting update. I don't think it impacts our case in any any way at all. Um maybe you feel differently.

[00:11:29]Do uh do you want to update listeners on the latest on where that case is at the uh the the government's appeal to the Supreme Court? Because I get asked about this all the time. [snorts] I get asked about that all the time, too. Yeah. So, we don't have uh an update on the [laughter] case. The government has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. uh we don't know if they're going to get it. If they do, we are ready to fight. Uh and if you want to support us in that fight, you can visit the ccf.ca/donate because, you know, the government has hired uh external lawyers, really expensive ones, and they have unlimited funds to fight this battle. Uh but we are willing to fight all the way to the very end.

[00:12:20]So, and and we have really really good lawyers. So, we have to pay them. So, please help us support the the case fighting back against the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act and the Carney government's doubling down on that use of that law, the illegal use of that law, because we had two victories so far. You know, we won at federal court, we won at federal court of appeal. We think we're going to win at the Supreme Court as well, but we have to wait and see if the Supreme Court even wants to hear it. Okay, let's turn to my news headline. Mine is also about a criminal case. It's one that a lot of Canadians have been following with a lot of interest, including me. This is a case about historic sexual offense allegations made against billionaire Frank Stronic. So, Frank Stronic is the founder of Magna International, which is a car parts manufacturer. He has had no role in the company following a restructuring of his shares back in 2010 and his resignation from the board in 2011. So, he's no longer involved with the company, but obviously his name is connected to it because he's the founder. Uh, so that's kind of the context of who he is. So, in June of 2024, Stronic was arrested for multiple sexual assault allegations and in total he ultimately has faced 18 criminal charges involving 12 different complaintants. And the alleged incidents span several decades. Some go back to the 1970s. And the charges include sexual assault uh and forcible confinement. Those are um the modern version of the offenses. They still stand. Uh but it also includes historic offenses of rape, which was an offense that existed under Canadian law before 1983, and indecent assault on a female, which is another pre983 offense. So those older charges, uh rape and indecent assault, they appear because Canadian courts prosecute alleged offenses under the law as it existed at the time. the the alleged offense occurred. So there's no retroactive law.

[00:14:33]They use the offense as it stood at the time. And you know, there's no limitation period for indictable sexual offenses. So even though the allegations are from decades ago, they can still be prosecuted. And we reformed our laws in 1983 to get rid of the terms rape and attempted rape and indecent assault. and they were replaced by things like sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault.

[00:15:01]Now, what's going on with with the case?

[00:15:04]So, basically, it was split into two separate trials because of the large number of complaintants. So, the first trial involved 12 charges and seven complaintants. And those are allegations that date back to the 1970s through to the 1990s. And even though it start with 12 charges and seven complaintants, the during the course of the trial, the crown withdrew some of the charges and by the time the judge ruled, there were only a few of them that remained for decision. So I also want to be clear that throughout all of these proceedings and in his public statements, Frank Stronick has denied all allegations and he has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. and his defense has argued that many of the allegations are unreliable because they concern events that, you know, took place a really long time ago.

[00:16:01]Um, so the the the first trial proceeded uh with a judge trial, not a jury trial, and the judge released her decision this past June involving uh charges involving two different women. Uh actually it was involving a bunch of different women, but he was convicted on two charges uh involving two different women. He was convicted of a sexual assault against a former employee in the 1980s and he was convicted of an indecent assault against a woman uh who used to go to his bar, a bar called Rooney in the 1970s. And this judge was actually the judge in a case that I talked about last week that um that case R and DC where Justice Malloy gave a conditional sentence, a community sentence to a man convicted of repeatedly uh raping his or sexually assaulting although it was penetrative intercourse um his little sister and she gave him a conditional sentence. So, it was the same it's the same judge, Justice Malloy. And in this case, Justice Malloy emphasized that each complainant's evidence needs to be assessed separately and independently.

[00:17:20]And the convictions, because there were two convictions, those were based on findings that the crown proved those specific allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Um, and in the other uh with the other complaintants, it didn't meet that standard. So, let's talk about both of the convictions. The first conviction, as I said, was a early 1980 sexual assault conviction. And according to Justice Malloyy's findings, um, this was a former employee, and she had previously worked at that bar, Rooney, and then she contacted him after she was, uh, terminated from Rooney, and he invited her to a dinner. After dinner, he invited her to his condo nearby. And she testified that she wanted to leave right after arriving at the condo and that as he helped her put on her coat, he ran his hands over her body, including her breasts, hip, and hips without consent. And shortly after that, she was offered a job interview at Magna and eventually worked there for several years. So that was the conviction. Uh she found that this complainant was credible and reliable. describing her as a compelling, believable, and truthful witness. And she concluded that the touching while quote at the low end of the spectrum of sexual assault because it was brief um and was nevertheless nonconsensual and therefore criminal. Um then there was the second conviction.

[00:18:47]This was for an indecent assault in the 1970s. uh that um is also like if we were to convert that to today's standard would also be a level one sexual assault a non-consentual touching without significant bodily injury. So that conviction related to a woman who used to hang out at Rooney's in the 1970s and the justice Malloy found that in in this woman's case had groped her uh and that constituted indecent assault and because the events predated the the criminal code reforms uh he was charged under the law as it applied at the time. Um so the convictions did not arise from one of the women who had alleged rape because there was a separate uh allegation and charge of rape. And that woman alleged that in 1981 Stronic had inserted her his fingers into her crotch while they were dancing at Rooney's and she testified that she later blacked out and she awoke believing that she had been raped. But during the final submissions, Justice Malloy uh had some serious concerns about this complainant's evidence, saying that she, Justice Malloy, believed that this complainant had added layers and layers to her account over time, and that ultimately the evidence was unreliable to the point that she couldn't convict on those charges. So, the convictions arose from those two other women whose accounts the judge found to be reliable beyond a reasonable doubt. Uh but now there has been a really explosive update. On July 17th, so just last week, Justice Malloy declared a mistrial in one of those two convictions for the conviction of the sexual assault involving the former employee. That's the uh the putting on the coat scenario where he ran his hands on her hips and breasts. So that means that you know the entire first trial is not like it's erased. uh his separate conviction for the historic offense of indecent assault of the woman who hung out at Rooney's that remains in place. Um and the sentencing is scheduled for September, but the charge of sexual assault has now been set aside. So, how did this happen?

[00:21:11]How did you get a mistrial for this after everything uh that you know there had a full trial? Well, how do you end up with a mistrial at this point after the conviction?

[00:21:20]Well, at the time of the conviction, there was no civil lawsuit involving that complainant. But after the complainant, the sexual assault um after the conviction, the sexual assault complainant began a civil claim, which means she was seeking money. And in the course of that claim, according to Stronick's lawyers, the complainant's lawyer sent an email describing the woman's case. And according to Leora Schmeesh, who is Stronic's criminal lawyer, the description of the case in that email or those emails was materially different from the story that was told at trial. At the criminal trial, the complainant had testified that after the incident uh at his condo, she accepted a job at Magna and worked there for sever several years, did not work directly with Stronic and generally had a positive experience at the company. And Justice Malloy relied on that evidence in assessing this uh complainant's credibility. But the civil lawyers emails instead portrayed this complainant uh have as having been deeply traumatized, humiliated, and fearful throughout her employment at Magna. Uh that she and and she sought substantial monetary damages on that basis. At least this is according to Schmeesh's characterization of the emails. So Schmeesh, a strong criminal lawyer, argued that this was an entirely different story from the evidence that the judge had accepted at trial. And the judge apparently concluded that the new information was serious enough that the existing guilty verdict could not safely stand without the issue being properly examined. And it's also worth noting that in the original criminal just judgment uh in the original conviction Malloy, Justice Malloy had noted that this complainant had not brought a civil lawsuit which the judge considered as a factor supporting the absence of a financial motive. And once the civil claim was commenced uh you know before sentencing that underlying premise had changed and the reports suggest that this you know might contribute to be to some of the reasons this new information is significant. Uh but there are still important gaps like um Justice Malloy as of this recording hasn't released a detailed written reason explaining why the emails required a mistrial rather than a different remedy because there are other remedies available. Uh we also haven't seen the statement of claim in the civil um civil case. We don't so we don't know the amount of damages that the complainant was seeking and we also don't know whether the inconsistency arose from the complainant's own instructions or maybe the lawyer mischaracterized the case by accident or if there was some other misunderstanding. So there is there are gaps in the information. But from a a litigation perspective, this is unusual.

[00:24:25]Um, this isn't just that a witness filed a civil lawsuit after a criminal conviction, which is actually quite common in sexual assault cases. What appears to have made this exceptional is the defense's claim that the civil communications described facts that were materially different from the sworn criminal testimony, which potentially affects the judge's credibility findings. And you know whether that characteristic ultimate characterization ultimately proves correct is going to be clearer to us if Mallaloy Justice Malloy releases reasons or if the if there's a retrial and that leads me to the last point of you know what happens next you know what what happens for Stronic there's a mistrial well you know there's a mistrial for that one conviction so that no longer stands but that doesn't mean the charge has been dismissed the crown Brown can decide if they want to retry Stronic and on that charge of sexual assault. And if they do, you know, they would have to present evidence again. The complainant might have to testify again. The defense would then have the opportunity to cross-examine her using this newly discovered material and that would be subject to all the ordinary rules of evidence. But I expect because now there has been this new evidence and it will be used to attack the credibility of the complainant. I would be surprised if the crown retries on those charges, especially because they do have the other conviction, the in indecent assault conviction involving a separate complaintant and that conviction stands.

[00:26:01]So that conviction will proceed to sentencing. There's no mandatory minimum. Although, as we know from Justice Malloyy's decision I described last week in that DC case, I don't know that Mallaloy really believes in mandatory minimums. Um, so what are the possible sentences? Uh, well, as a sexual offense, it's it's a ser serious offense. Um, the complainant was credible. uh her bodily autonomy was violated, but as a mitigating factor, you know, this is an offense that took place many decades ago, like 40, 50 years ago, I think. Uh it was in the 70s. Um there was no allegation of prolonged violence or physical interest injury. This was like a groping incident, not a violent assault. And another mitigating factor is Stronic is 93 years old. He has no prior criminal record. And while it is hard to predict a sentence on this conviction alone, I would be floored if there was any custodial sentence for a 93 year old man with no criminal record. I would suspect uh a suspended sentence. They cannot do like a conditional discharge because it's a indictable offense. Um, separately though, he also faces the remaining charges that were never part of the first trial. Um, those allegations still proceed independently.

[00:27:32]And whatever happens with this mistrial, it doesn't affect any of those. And the second trial hasn't even begun yet. It's scheduled to begin in May of 2027. And it will involve a jury trial unlike this one. So, when this story first broke back in 2024, I actually interviewed Frank Stronick about it on my TV show, Canadian Justice. He of course, as I already said, he denies all allegations, but it's still an interesting conversation. It was I've never done anything like that before, so it was very interesting to sit down and talk to him about what is going on and his perspective on it. So, if you want to see that interview, you can check it out. Search up Canadian Justice Frank Stronick on YouTube. So Josh, I I spoke about how a mistrial is an exceptional remedy. I do think Mallaloy had other alternative procedural um remedies. I I I let look I have I am not a criminal lawyer. I forget a lot of criminal procedure, but I do think that other options, if I remember correctly, involve things like you can reopen a trial and I think you can also reconsider a verdict. Um, were you surprised that she chose to go I think the most common thing that you would see though is that this would be raised on the appeal like presumably um Stronic would appeal the convictions and then these issues can be raised in the appeal. Um so were you surprised given those alternative remedies uh that she chose to grant a mistrial or do you think that the severity here of this you know as the defense says mischaracterization or um material difference between the testimony at trial and what was described in the emails. Do you think that factual difference is big enough to choose a mistrial as a remedy? Yeah, I I mean based on what we know, I think um this probably was the right call. Um I I think that she's got reasonable doubt and you know I think most judges probably would as a result of that and you know the other maybe the other factors like that the fact that there was a conviction on something else isn't supposed to enter into it but in a practical sense it does and you know his age again um you know that might factor into sentencing but uh it also in a way factors into the public interest uh here in continuing to pursue that charge when he's got these other charges coming and that other conviction and um all of that. So, I guess I'm not all that surprised and uh it's an interesting lesson in the law. So, uh let's take our break and when we come back, I will give my bad legal take and then you can give yours, Christine.

[00:30:18]So, my bad legal take this week goes to Montreal police for arresting and charging a man and a pretty awful man by the sounds of it, but still uh for criminal defamation, which is not a charge that I think should even exist in 2026. So, this guy's named Muhammad Beck Ali, and he went viral on at least in Quebec earlier this year for his pretty disgusting rant caught on video towards a female uh SPVM cop. That's a Montreal police cop who had pulled him over because of unpaid tickets. And in that video, he says, you know, you're breaking my balls. You're dirty. It's It's not my fault you make $20 an hour.

[00:30:57]It's not my fault I'm richer than you. I if I want I can I can buy you and sell you into slavery and you're I'll make you my slave. I want you as my slave.

[00:31:07]And then he uses a misogynistic curse word 13 times that's been translated a couple different ways, but I won't say it. you can probably guess what it is.

[00:31:15]Um, and obviously this has gotten a lot of attention. Part of the reason it's gotten a lot of attention is because he's of Moroccan background and a lot of people online think this misogyny is somehow related to that. In any event, that's unacceptable behavior. But that's not actually according to Tea why he's now been charged criminally for his speech. This new charge is related to AI generated content on social media that insults the SPVM, the Montreal police, the Longoy police, and the Quebec Provincial Police. And this includes a post that TA has republished because it's that inoffensive um that shows a man in a hoodie holding three dogs wearing vests and collars. And these vests and collars essentially identify the three police forces. And that's it.

[00:32:01]That's what the that's what that post appears to say. accord according to uh TV and we don't know the other two posts because there are three counts here. So maybe the other ones are worse. I would guess maybe they are. But in any event, he's been charged criminally for defamation for essentially uh making fun of or criticizing the police. And we all know what defamation is. You know, people go to civil court and they sue another person for lowering their reputation usually by telling lies about them. And even that makes me pretty uncomfortable uh because of the impact on free speech. But criminal liel is a whole different ballgame because it amounts to the state putting someone in jail for insulting another person. Uh in section 298 of the criminal code is the section used here. It says if a person publish a person publishes a defamatory liel if it's likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or is designed to insult that person. And it has a 2year prison sentence, a 2-year maximum. So 2 years for insulting the police, uh it seems inappropriate and it's rooted criminal liel in the the worst traditions of censorship by the state authorities. It was historically used by, you know, the kings and the queens and the powerful to wield power against regular citizens who criticize them. And that's why, you know, dozens of US states have gotten rid of it. Why the law reform commission, law commission of Canada has uh suggested since 1984 that Canada get rid of it, too. So, my bad legal take goes to Montreal police for using the criminal justice system to shut down the speech of a critic, however awful uh I agree that critic may be. Christine, let's let's hear yours.

[00:33:49]>> That's crazy. That's crazy. I hate these laws that say you can't insult police.

[00:33:54]Um I don't think it's a nice idea to insult police to be clear, but I don't I I mean the police just the the the difference in power is so tremendous.

[00:34:06]Like police are literally carrying a gun and this is mean words. Like very mean words, but it's not a gun. like you will survive mean words. Um, okay. So, my bad legal take this week goes to Alex Silis, who is the president, a vice president, sorry, uh, for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is a major Canadian union. And he wrote a piece for the Walrus last week called How I Faced Off Against the Freedom Convoy and won over its supporters. And the subtitle was, "Some of them even apologized and broke down in tears." I think this went viral as a hate read. Like I think people were sharing it just out of how bad it was. So I actually went into the article with a somewhat open mind because, you know, while obviously we sued the Trudeau government over their illegal use of the emergencies act uh because of, you know, they used it in response to the convoy. Um, even though we did that, look, I am not some universal proconvoy person. Uh, while I have some sympathy for the reasons the protesters were there, you know, the extended lockdowns, I also was opposed to um e and and and also I support the constitutional right to protest even if I didn't have those sympathies. Uh, even though I feel that way, I also support the rule of law and the convoy, like any protest, there was some bad behavior there. The blockades needed to be removed. You can't indefinitely block a street like that.

[00:35:48]Um, and you know, Josh, you talked about some of the problems of the convoy in your news headline. Um, so I was curious to read the article because I want to understand different perspectives, but it was so it was so bad. I mean, he talks about at one point how the convoy got special treatment and that other protests are just immediately shut down and it's so unfair. And look, I do think that the police made mistakes in Ottawa that a made entrenchment of that protest a lot easier. I write about that in my book pandemic panic. Um but I mean look if you talk to any Jewish families living at Baurst and Shepard or Ba like up in North York in Ontar in Toronto um they will describe how protesters they that they see as pro- Hamas uh are terrorizing their residential neighborhoods regularly and they will say that those protests are treated by police with kid gloves. So I think that the idea that the convoy was espec uh is just I mean factually not correct at all. But I think that the most absurd parts of the articles um are these these two I'm going to read. So do I think that the events of 2022 finally put an end to the rise of the far right in Canada? Were the presence of Nazi flags, the desecration of the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the attempted arson of a high-rise apartment building enough to convince the political right that there's something insidious and dangerous in the extremism they're harboring and encouraging? No, we have much more organizing to do. So like a lot of factual problems in that statement. Um very briefly on uh you know there's been much made of some of the extremist symbols at the the protests like the this swastika symbol.

[00:37:49]Um the main one that has been criticized. Uh I do think there might have been one other one but the main one had a lot of photos of it was like a swastika made out of syringes. And I mean it's it's like an intentional misinterpretation of the in of of the meaning of that like the the meaning of that particular symbol. While I think very distasteful and stupid, what the that protester in any normal reading is trying to communicate is that Trudeau and his vaccine mandate is are Nazis, not that they support Nazis. Um although I do think that there might have been other extremist symbols where we didn't have uh an explanation and uh there was I think there was another swastika that was flown but I'm not I don't remember correct quite entirely now. Um but the attempted arson uh claim has is it's just not true. Uh and it's mentioned twice in the article. The other mention says, "Our city was besieged by a convoy that had expressed and shown itself to be violent. Businesses and homes flying pride flags were vandalized. Businesses owned by people of color were targeted.

[00:39:04]Women were harassed walking down the street. And there was an attempted arson and sabotage of lowincome apartment buildings, buildings, multiple buildings." So now it's even expanded beyond the original claim that there was one attempted arson. Um, so it is just a fact that this protest was notable for its lack of violence. That is what the police testified at the public order emergency commission. The this the criminal charges related to the convoy are mischief. Uh Josh described the most highprofile of those charges. So all of these things that are alleged in this article lack of factual foundation. Uh we also know um that this arson claim is just fabricated. Um it was originally reported upon by some mainstream media and it has now been completely debunked.

[00:39:58]It's easy to fact check that this is not true. It is not true that someone from the convoy tried to commit mass murder and burn down a building. Um there I mean it you could have just looked this up. You could find out easily before publishing this two times in the article that that didn't happen.

[00:40:20]So there is no basis for this claim. So continuing to repeat it multiple times, not checking your facts about it and um alleging that the convoy tried to commit mass murder. Bad legal take.

[00:40:35]>> Yeah, bad legal take indeed. It's how hard is it to fact check in 2026? You have all this AI assistance and uh it's it's really not hard. All right, that's the end of the show. Thank you as usual for listening or watching if you're watching on YouTube. And as usual, we'll ask you to subscribe if you haven't already. Uh and you can also support our work by following us on X, following us on Instagram, or going to our website and subscribing to the Freedom Update newsletter. The CCF is a nonpartisan charity funded by your donations. So, please do click that donate button on our website if you can. Thanks for listening.