Is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate? Last year, the Canadian prime minister dismissed reports that the Chinese funnelled money into Liberal Party candidates.
“I do not have any information, nor have I been briefed on any federal candidates receiving any money from China,” Justin Trudeau told the press.
But then a whistleblower in CSIS (Canada’s version of the CIA) revealed the truth: the cabinet had been briefed “multiple times” on the dangers of Chinese electoral interference.
So will Canadians get a public inquiry into the integrity of the nation’s elections? Obviously not. The problem isn’t Justin’s favourite dictatorship. It’s CSIS.
He said, “It’s certainly a sign that security within CSIS needs to be reviewed. And I’m expecting CSIS to take the issue very seriously.”
So there you have it. The problem isn’t Chinese interference in the election. It’s the CSIS agent who revealed the inaction from Ottawa to the Globe.
Oh, by the way, the internet censorship bill passed in the Senate.
So Canadians are losing their rights to free speech and fair elections. This can only beg the question – is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate?
And if not, do we have a moral obligation to obey Justin’s legal cannabis rules and regulations?
Is Justin Trudeau’s Government Legitimate?
Asking if Justin Trudeau’s government is legitimate requires some John Locke. Many regard the English philosopher and physician as the most influential Enlightenment thinker and the “father of liberalism.”
Canada’s Parliament has John Locke’s fingerprints all over it.
Locke says legitimate state power comes from the consent of the governed. The government must represent the interests of the people to maintain legitimacy.
If not, the people have a right to revolt. However, Locke said people should try and use peaceful means before resorting to violence.
Locke says people have a right to petition and protest their government. Suppose the government fails to address the people’s grievances. In that case, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government and establish a new one.
In this context – is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate? Does it have the consent of the people?
The Case Against Trudeau
Consider only 32.6% of the population voted for the Liberal Party. There were more votes against them. In both 2019 and 2021, the Conservatives took home the popular vote.
However, the first-past-the-post system typically skews the results this way, giving Southern Ontario and Quebec massive leverage. (To the point that elections are usually over before British Columbians have even finished voting).
Before becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau pledged to scrap this system and replace it with a proportional representation voting system. He wanted to make “every vote count.”
Many people voted Liberal in 2015, hoping Justin wasn’t lying when he tweeted that the “2015 election will be the last under the first-past-the-post system.”
But of course, he abandoned the idea once he had his majority government. And when Canadians rewarded him with two consecutive minority governments, he teamed up with the NDP to rule as if he still retained his majority.
Teaming up with opposition members to form a coalition is valid in a parliamentary democracy, even if the opposition party lacks backbone.
But now we’re learning that these elections weren’t free of foreign influence. The Chinese funded 11 candidates. CSIS said one of the Liberal candidates is basically a stooge for the CCP.
But in typical Trudeau fashion, the man-child prime minister responded that these allegations were evidence of “anti-Asian racism.”
That Conservatives and the media are trying to “sow chaos” and “confusion and mistrust.”
Or as one Liberal MP put it, “This is the same Trump-type tactics to question election results. That is dangerous for Canadians to go down this road because, like I said, we have seen our neighbours to the south and what happens when you start demonizing democratic institutions and when you start undermining their legitimacy.”
So, in other words, forget the list of scandals that have plagued this government in its short 8-year life, and simply trust us.
When Peaceful Protests Fail
Asking if Justin Trudeau’s government is legitimate is like asking if there is a moral duty to obey the law. Unfortunately, Canadians, like most Westerners, identify the law with the state.
However, what is legal isn’t always what’s lawful.
Everyone agrees sending Canadian citizens of Japanese ethnicity to internment camps during World War 2 was unlawful. The same goes for sending aboriginal children to Residential Schools.
Yet, these were all considered legal and valid via Parliament then.
When the Wuhan lab leaked COVID, the corporate state used the crisis to increase their own wealth and power.
Never letting a good crisis go to waste is the mantra of the elite.
By 2020, the World Economic Forum had already “penetrated” the federal government. Justin Trudeau is one of Klaus Schwab’s Global Young Leaders.
So Justin’s COVID regime was extra harsh. And when Canadians finally had enough, they protested. They went to Ottawa and demanded a meeting with the prime minister.
Of course, Justin refused. And in the following weeks would impose the Emergency Act, which gave extraordinary powers to end the protest, including freezing bank accounts.
The message was clear: you can protest climate change. You can go out into the streets and shout Black Lives Matter! as much as you want. But certain subjects are off limits.
There was a review of the Emergency Act and questions on whether Justin abused his power. A Trudeau appointee and long-term Liberal Party member headed the review. He found no wrongdoing.
Likewise, with Chinese interference, Trudeau has appointed someone from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate it. But mostly, he has called the CSIS report “inaccurate” without indicating what those inaccuracies might be.
Censorship Bill Passed: Is Justin Trudeau’s Government Legitimate?
Is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate? The Senate passed Bill C-11, which puts Canada’s internet under the same regulatory umbrella as television and radio.
It will also require streaming giants such as YouTube, Netflix and Spotify to produce “Canadian content,” as defined by Ottawa bureaucrats.
Ultimately, it will limit the range of allowable opinions online. Since Trump and COVID, authorities and busybodies have been adamant that they must stem the tide of “misinformation.”
Of course, the only way to determine if something is “mis” information is to compare it with other information.
And if the problem is people are too dumb to think for themselves, look no further than the government institutions educating the populace from kindergarten to high school.
Of course, combating “misinformation” is another word for censorship. CLN has received at least one email in the past from Health Canada about our content.
Bill C-11 will only amplify this process.
Is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate? We’re losing our rights to free expression. We are losing our rights to protest peacefully. And we are losing our right to a free and fair election.
We are dangerously close to justifying John Locke’s right to revolution.
One Last Remedy – Power Flowing in the Other Direction
In parliamentary systems like Canada’s Westminster System, “power flowing in the wrong direction” refers to when the executive branch (usually the Prime Minister and Cabinet) holds too much power and influence over the legislative branch (represented by Members of Parliament or “backbenchers”).
The system is designed to work so legislators can independently deliberate and make decisions on behalf of their constituents.
In reality, the executive branch controls government resources and decision-making to apply pressure and control legislators’ actions.
This is a problem with the Parliamentary system itself. In theory, it looks legit. In practice, the prime minister with a majority government has the power of a dictator.
And indeed, Justin Trudeau has no problem assuming the role. During COVID, he attempted to dismantle the very foundation of “Responsible Government” by being able to pass budgets and spend money without getting approval from Parliament.
The last time Canadians took up arms against their government was in 1837. And it was precisely over this issue of Responsible government.
Fortunately, Trudeau didn’t get his way, and the foundations of Canada’s Parliament still hold. In theory, Canadians can pressure their MPs to remove Trudeau from office.
Indeed, all it takes is a bunch of NDP supporters to occupy their MPs’ offices. With enough pressure, Jagmeet Singh will have to pull the plug on the government.
Or maybe they’ll invoke the Emergencies Act again.
Do we have a moral obligation to obey Justin’s legal cannabis rules?
Is Justin Trudeau’s government legitimate? Does it have the consent of the people? I believe only individuals can express consent. So, no, the “social contract” theory of government is akin to the “Divine Right of Kings.”
In other words, taxation is institutionalized extortion. Only you can express consent. A rape condoned by the majority is still rape.
Just as Residential Schools were unlawful despite what Parliament or the Supreme Court of the time may have said.
So with that in mind, do Canadians have a moral obligation to obey Justin’s legal cannabis rules? Especially considering the lack of legitimacy his government has?
No, we are not morally obligated to place ourselves under the dictates of those with political authority. To do so would lead to immoral actions based on the premise of “just following orders.”
We should disobey laws that violate human rights. Do Canada’s current recreational cannabis laws violate the human rights of medical cannabis patients? I’d say so.
What about cannabis laws that are simply bad or ineffective, such as excise taxes? Disobeying them is justified if doing so would lead to a better outcome or a more just society.
Individuals have a moral duty to act in accordance with their conscience and principles rather than blindly following political rules and regulations.
Of course, cannabis activists know that disobeying the law has consequences. But then, so does obeying immoral ones.