Woke Carney’s O Canada Hypocrisy in Selective Prosecution of ‘Freedom Convoy’ protesters… now facing ludicrous prison sentences of 7-8 years for mere ‘Mischief’

Chris Barber, Tamara Lich found guilty of mischief for roles in Freedom Convoy

The sentencing recommendations for Chris Barber and Tamara Lich in the Freedom Convoy case have sparked debate about whether Canada’s government is being fair or overly punitive. Here’s a breakdown of the key considerations:

1. Context of the Charges

Barber and Lich were key organizers of the 2022 protests, which paralyzed downtown Ottawa for weeks. While the protests were initially peaceful, they led to:

• Disruptions: Blockades of critical infrastructure, noise violations, and economic impacts.

• Legal Violations: Court injunctions against honking and blockades were ignored.

• Emergency Measures Act: The federal government invoked unprecedented emergency powers to clear the protests.

The Crown’s case argued that Barber and Lich knowingly encouraged unlawful behavior, despite court orders.

2. The Crown’s Sentencing Request

• Chris Barber: Prosecutors sought 8 years, citing his leadership role and alleged encouragement of disruptive acts.

• Tamara Lich: The Crown asked for 7 years, emphasizing her fundraising efforts and public defiance of authorities.

These requests are unusually high for protest-related offenses in Canada, where sentences for even violent protests are typically much lighter.

3. Comparisons to Other Cases

• Indigenous Pipeline Protests: Few jail sentences, mostly fines or conditional discharges.

• G20 Toronto (2010): Most protesters received minimal penalties, despite property damage.

• Criminal Mischief/Obstruction Precedents: Typically result in months, not years, in jail.

This disparity has led critics to accuse the government of political bias, punishing the Freedom Convoy more harshly than left-leaning protests.

4. Fairness Concerns

• Proportionality? The requested sentences exceed those for many violent crimes (e.g., some assaults, robberies).

• Political Motivation? The Trudeau government faced significant pressure to crack down, raising concerns about selective enforcement.

• Judicial Independence: The final decision rests with the judge, who may impose a lesser sentence.

While the protests were disruptive, the Crown’s sentencing demands appear disproportionate compared to precedents. Whether this reflects fairness or political retribution depends on perspective, but the severity has raised legitimate concerns about unequal justice in Canada.

Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber to hear verdict in mischief trial

Here’s the story:-

Oh, Canada’s hypocrisy! ‘Freedom Convoy’ protesters face ludicrous prison sentences for mere ‘mischief’

According to Canada’s top prosecutors, the only thing worse than tyranny is “mischief.” And the worst possible “mischief” is objecting to tyranny.

In a sentencing hearing earlier this week, the Canadian government sought a ludicrous eight-year sentence for Chris Barber, one of the leaders of the Covid “Freedom Convoy” protest that riled Ottawa in early 2022. For another leader, Tamara Lich, the Crown asked for an outlandish seven years.

In April, a court ruled that Barbers and Lich were not guilty of obstructing police or intimidation during the demonstrations. But they were convicted of “mischief” — in part because the truckers in the 40-mile convoy honked their horns to protest some of the most oppressive Covid mandates in the world.

Canada’s truck drivers protested a vaccine mandate in early 2022.

Crown prosecutor Siobhain Wetscher justified the harsh prison sentences saying “it’s difficult to imagine an offense of mischief with greater impact.”

Ironically, that was the same way that many truckers felt about the Canadian government’s Covid mandates. And now Canadian prosecutors are hounding the former protestors, pretending that a Canadian judge did not raze their entire legal house of cards a year ago.

From the start of the pandemic, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acted as if Covid entitled him to absolute power. Anyone who refused to get the approved Covid vaccines was castigated as a public enemy.

Tamara Lich was one of the leaders of the “Freedom Convoy.”

Trudeau responded to the trucker protest by invoking the Emergencies Act, effectively dropping a legal nuclear bomb on his opponents. Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the government was “broadening the scope of Canada’s … terrorist-financing rules so that they cover Crowd Funding Platforms and the payment service providers they use.”

The Trudeau government did not formally redefine horn-honking as a terrorist offense but that didn’t impede their crackdown. Banks were authorized to freeze the personal accounts of anyone suspected of donating to the truckers.

The Covid vaccines were catastrophically failing to prevent infections at the same time Trudeau dropped an iron fist on anti-vax protestors. Almost 90% of Canadian adults had been vaccinated by the start of 2022 as Covid cases were soaring, setting records almost every week. Even though he was vaxxed and boosted, Trudeau himself came down with Covid during the trucker protest.

At the end of July, Lich attended a sentencing hearing for her role in the protests. The Crown asked that she be sentenced to seven years.

Trudeau pretended that no Canadian had a right not to get injected because he personally proclaimed that the Covid vaccine was safe. But the rushed approval process ignored potential adverse side effects. (The Food and Drug Administration now requires formal warnings about Covid vaccine risks of pericarditis — stabbing chest pains — and myocarditis.)

In January 2024, Canadian federal judge Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act had been unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional. Trudeau’s regulations “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions.” The judge slammed “the absence of any objective standard” for freezing bank accounts, but the court decision provided no relief for any of the victims whose bank accounts were unjustifiably seized or whose freedom and privacy was shredded.

America saw similar absolute immunity for politicians who fueled fear and fabricated emergencies to seize absolute power, including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disastrous decree forcing nursing homes to accept Covid patients, President Joe Biden’s illegal vaccine mandate for large private companies and Covid Czar Tony Fauci’s presidential pardon for sending U.S. tax dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology that killed 7 million people worldwide.

The Canadian government sought an 8-year sentence for Chris Barber (center).

The persecution of trucker protestors is a stark reminder of the two-class system that permeated the pandemic in Canada and the U.S. There were no true “lockdowns.” Instead, the laptop class and officialdom stayed home and enjoyed full salary, while the comparatively downtrodden delivered their groceries, fancy meals, and endless knick-knacks from Amazon.

But all those doorstep deliveries were forgotten when the Canadian political and media elite teamed up to vilify any citizen who didn’t submit to official commands. All the judicial precedents established since THE Magna Charta CARTA? were practically expunged by a ruling class that justified even Quebec’s idiotic Covid decree prohibiting people from leaving their homes at night

Perhaps the best punishment for the two Canadian trucker protest leaders would be to televise them standing in front of a blackboard where they write a hundred times: “I’m sorry I objected to tyranny.” An even more apt punishment would be to compel all the Canadian politicians and officials who enforced oppressive Covid policies to wear ashes, sackcloth, and a sign: “I’m sorry for my tyranny.”

Is a little “mischief” the only way to get politicians to heed a Constitution?

Let’s dive deeper into the legal and political arguments surrounding the Crown’s sentencing requests for Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, examining whether they align with Canadian legal principles or reflect political bias.

1. The Legal Basis for the Crown’s Sentencing Requests

The prosecutors sought 8 years for Barber and 7 years for Lich under charges including:

• Mischief (interfering with lawful use of property, Criminal Code s. 430)

• Obstruction of justice (ignoring court injunctions)

• Counseling others to commit mischief (for encouraging protesters to remain)

Why the Crown Argued for Severe Sentences

• Aggravating Factors:

  • Leadership roles: The Crown argued Barber and Lich were “orchestrators,” not just participants.

  • Prolonged disruption: The protests lasted weeks, causing economic harm and distress in Ottawa.

  • Defiance of court orders: Injunctions were ignored, escalating the legal response.

  • Invocation of the Emergencies Act: The government framed the protest as a national threat.

• Case Law Cited by the Crown:

  • R. v. W.(G.) (1999) – Sentences for mischief can escalate based on harm caused.

  • R. v. Nunner (1976) – Obstruction of justice can warrant multi-year sentences.

However, these cases typically involve violent conduct or major financial harm, whereas the Freedom Convoy was largely non-violent (though disruptive).

2. Comparing Precedents: Are the Requests Out of Line?

A. Sentences for Protest-Related Offenses

Case	Offense	Sentence
Freedom Convoy (Lich/Barber)	Mischief, obstruction	7-8 yrs (requested)
2010 G20 Toronto Riots	Vandalism, arson, assaults	Mostly fines, probation (few jail terms)
Wet’suwet’en Pipeline Protests (2020)	Blockades, contempt of court	Mostly dismissed or conditional discharges
Fairy Creek Logging Protests (2021-22)	Civil disobedience, trespass	No jail time, minor fines

Key Takeaway: The Crown’s request for Lich/Barber is far harsher than penalties for more destructive protests.

B. Sentences for Similar Non-Protest Crimes

• Assault causing bodily harm: Often 6 months–2 years.

• Theft over $5,000: Typically under 2 years.

• Drug trafficking (small scale): 1–3 years.

Conclusion: The requested 7-8 years would place Lich/Barber’s offenses above many violent crimes in severity—a questionable proportionality.

3. Political Bias Arguments

A. Government’s Stance on Other Protests

• Indigenous Blockades: Trudeau’s government often negotiated rather than prosecuted (e.g., Wet’suwet’en).

• Climate Protests: Groups like Extinction Rebellion disrupted cities but faced minimal charges.

B. The Emergencies Act Factor

The Trudeau government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act (later ruled partially unconstitutional by a federal court) suggests a politicized response. Critics argue:

• The protests were not an insurrection (no widespread violence).

• The government could have used existing laws to clear blockades (as done in Alberta without emergency powers).

C. Judicial Response

• Tamara Lich’s initial sentence: 18 months (later overturned on appeal).

• Chris Barber’s sentence: Conditional discharge (no jail time).
  This suggests judges found the Crown’s requests excessive, reinforcing fairness concerns.

4. Legal Principles at Stake

A. Proportionality (Section 718.1 of Criminal Code)

Sentences must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offense.”

• Question: Does 7-8 years fit a non-violent protest, even if disruptive?

B. Charter Rights (Freedom of Expression & Assembly)

• Section 2(b)/(c) of the Charter protects protest rights, but not unlawful actions.

• Courts balance these rights against public order.

C. Selective Prosecution Risk

If similar offenses (e.g., Indigenous blockades) are treated more leniently, it raises Charter s. 15 (equality) concerns.

5. Final Assessment: Fair or Politically Motivated?

Arguments for “Unfair” Treatment

✅ Disproportionate to precedents (harsher than violent protests).
✅ Contrast with Indigenous/climate protests suggests bias.
✅ Emergency Act overreach implies political pressure.

Justice Miscarriage? You betcha.

Bottom Line: While the protests warranted legal consequences, the Crown’s extreme sentencing requests appear inconsistent with Canadian sentencing norms, fueling perceptions of political bias. Judges’ refusal to impose such harsh terms suggests the system partially corrected the overreach.

Here’s are some examples why Woke Carney’s Canada is LAWLESS!

• Mark Carney condones Law Violation that compromised Safety of the general Public knowingly and wilfully
• LAWLESSNESS — Canada’s Moral & Legal Collapse: Carney’s hypocritical complicity in international Law Violations repeatedly has rendered the country to be labelled as a Lawless, Corrupt, Spineless, Pathetic, and Hypocritical Pariah Banana Republic with Zero Sovereignty
• Mark Carney’s Corrupt Leadership emboldens Doug Ford to say ‘People Don’t Give Two Hoots’ about the Greenbelt Corruption ie. Canadians Condones Lawlessness and happily embrace Corruption (even Murder) as a way of life… resulting in Brazen Lawbreakings all the way down to Municipal Regime eg. murderous Olivia Chow

This is Woke Carney’s Canada 🇨🇦🏳️‍🌈