The Convoy

Today I came across something that deepened a feeling I’ve held for a long time: redemption.

I just discovered 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗷𝗮𝗰𝗸—the RCMP’s internal after-action review of the 2022 Freedom Convoy. Though it was quietly published in 2024, I hadn’t heard of it until now. And like so many revelations over the past two years, it only strengthens what my intuition was screaming back then.

When the Convoy began, I didn’t know how it would unfold. I couldn’t predict whether it would stay peaceful, whether something would go wrong, or whether I’d later regret speaking up. But I saw the propaganda for what it was: 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱. Claims of white supremacy, vandalism, arson, terror plots—all delivered with theatrical certainty and zero scrutiny.

I took a risk in defending the Convoy while the events were still unfolding. I didn’t have access to the full picture. But I trusted my instincts. And in the end, I never felt the need to backpedal. Because nothing ever happened that justified the hysteria. The protest remained peaceful. It remained grounded. And it was 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭.

That’s not my opinion. That’s the ruling of 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗠𝗰𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, issued 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 the Convoy itself. Despite how many times Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, and others declared it an “illegal occupation,” 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁.

And the evidence just kept mounting.

Through the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC), we learned:

• CSIS had told the government in advance that there was no evidence of foreign influence or terrorism funding.

• FINTRAC had found no spike in suspicious transactions linked to Convoy fundraising.

• OPP intelligence officers had stated plainly: no credible threat of extremist violence.

Then, in 2024, Justice Mosley of the Federal Court ruled that invoking the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional, unreasonable, and illegal.

And now, Project Natterjack reveals that federal officials pressured RCMP intelligence analysts to frame the protest as “ideologically motivated violent extremism”—even though that designation didn’t fit. Analysts were flooded with hourly briefing demands, rushed into producing assessments, and in some cases, reports were misattributed or distorted to fit political expectations.

Even more disturbingly, RCMP officers on the ground suspected that the now-infamous swastika photo was staged—possibly orchestrated for media optics. Yet no one in law enforcement or mainstream media appeared interested in verifying who the flag-bearer was or why they vanished, despite the photo being used in Parliament to justify invoking emergency powers.

That absence of curiosity was the point.

And the persecution continues.

Convoy organizers like 𝗧𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗟𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀 𝗕𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿 remain entangled in a legal war of attrition. But even more chilling is the case of 𝗧𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗢𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁, two men arrested at the 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘁𝘀, 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁—not Ottawa—yet cited by the government as central justification for the Emergencies Act.

They were acquitted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder, yet sentenced to 6.5 years on lesser charges and recently denied parole, despite:

• Being model prisoners with no violent history,

• Scoring 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 for recidivism,

• Holding steady jobs and reintegration plans,

• And showing no threat to public safety.

Why were they denied parole?

Because of their 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀.

Parole officers and board members explicitly cited their Christian convictions, opposition to mandates, and skepticism of government as evidence of ongoing “risk.” They were penalized for appealing their convictions, for expressing anti-authoritarian views, and even for referencing the fact that exculpatory data had been wiped from their phones.

This is not justice. It’s not public safety. It’s not rehabilitation.

This is punishment for dissent.

This is wrongthink enforcement.

And yet… many Canadians don’t care.

Because by the time the truth emerged, the damage was already done.

A flood of propaganda had convinced millions that the Convoy was hateful, violent, and dangerous. So when the government abused its power, 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱. When it broke the law, they shrugged. And when the courts and intelligence agencies later confirmed that the threat was grossly overstated—or entirely fictional—most Canadians simply moved on.

But the public’s indifference is not an accident. It’s the lingering effect of the very lies used to justify the crackdown in the first place.

We were told the Convoy was a threat, so the government used exceptional powers to crush it.

And now, because people still believe the Convoy was a threat, they don’t care that those powers were used 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆.

It’s not just unjust—it’s deeply human, in the worst way.

We are a species that struggles to say:

We double down. We rationalize.

We trust the punishment because we never questioned the accusation.

𝘐 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺, 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘨𝘭𝘢𝘥 — 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘤𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 — 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦.

—Janice Fiamango (retired prof, Univ of Ottawa)

This report is one more piece of the puzzle.

ㅤ

ㅤ

ㅤ

— 𝗙𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 / 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 —

ㅤ

𝟭. 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗠𝗰𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗻: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹

“THIS COURT ORDERS that, provided the terms of this Order are complied with, the Defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.”

— 𝘏𝘰𝘯. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘔𝘤𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘯, 𝘖𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦, 𝘍𝘦𝘣 7, 2022

𝟮. 𝗖𝗦𝗜𝗦: 𝗡𝗼 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴

ㅤ

“A week before the Emergencies Act was invoked, CSIS told senior government officials it had found no evidence of foreign actors or states financing the convoy protests.”

𝟯. 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖: 𝗡𝗼 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆

ㅤ

“Fundraising for Canada’s ‘Freedom Convoy’ has not been linked to any spike in suspicious financial transactions.”

— 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘔𝘢𝘤𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘱, 𝘋𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳, 𝘍𝘐𝘕𝘛𝘙𝘈𝘊

𝟰. 𝗢𝗣𝗣 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: 𝗡𝗼 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺ㅤ

“The lack of violent crime was shocking.”

“Fears of extremist violence were exaggerated by unnamed political leaders and unspecified news reports.”

— 𝘗𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳, 𝘖𝘗𝘗 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘶, 𝘖𝘤𝘵. 19, 2022

𝟱. 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘆: 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹ㅤ

“The decision to issue the proclamation [was] unreasonable and unjustified.”

— 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘭𝘦𝘺, 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢, 2024 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨

Reference: 2024 𝘍𝘊 327 (official court judgment)

𝟲. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗷𝗮𝗰𝗸 (𝗥𝗖𝗠𝗣): 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲ㅤ

RCMP analysts were pressured to frame the Convoy as “ideologically motivated violent extremists.”

Analysts were overwhelmed by briefing demands and, in some cases, reports were rushed, skewed, or misattributed.

— 𝘙𝘊𝘔𝘗 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘫𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 2024

Catalogue No. PS64-220/2024E-PDF

ISBN: 978-0-660-70609-2

𝟳. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗢𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁ㅤ

Despite being acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder, both men were sentenced to 6.5 years and denied parole based explicitly on their beliefs and refusal to express remorse for dissent.

Parole documents show they were treated as ongoing threats because of anti-authoritarian views and distrust of government mandates.

— 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘢𝘸𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 2025