Lametti's Farcical Testimony A View Into The Soul Of A Weak Country With A Cruel Despotic Impulse

Putting all that I've heard from David Lametti into a coherent post is going to be a challenge. His testimony is one of the most eye-opening moments for me as a Canadian. For a couple of years I've lamented something is off with this country and to me, Lamett wasn't just giving insights into the mechanics of an Emergency Act but it allowed us a privileged journey into the mindset and soul - or lack thereof -  of this government. 

Through the testimonies of people like Bogden, Sabia, Jacques, Blair, Algabra, Anand, Mendocino and Lametti we see a group of individuals without any principles whatsoever. It's a government that is governed by a coterie of not just cabinet privilege - which is bad enough - but cabinet solidarity. What I'm seeing is a mafia-like entity within the government. A closed-off Cabinet that has been criticized for not even listening to its own caucus.

The disinterested body language, choice of attire and testy reactions to questioning all point to a group that clearly sees itself above scrutiny and perhaps even the law.

In fact, I've repeatedly argued this is a rogue government. An imposter democracy.

As I've said for years now, they're ideologues masking as nationalists. 

Before Lametti, we heard from Sabia who revealed the flippant indifferent nature to which our civil servants - and that's what they are servants - viewed their heavy-handed responses to what was clearly not a national threat no matter what they claim.  It's easy to lose sight of the fact the protests exploded because of the mandates created by the government. That the 'tools' such as freezing bank accounts were an obtuse, noxious and repugnant overreaction to threat. This is why the strategy from the government thus far has been to over-exaggerate the threat to national security. The response was not proportionate to the threat. Their lack of obligation to discourse made sure of this.

When all is said and done, there's no way Rouleau can conclude honking and parking violations rise to a level of national security threat. But I reckon he'll find a way. He'll mimic the government's 'loose' attitude to the law and the rule of law itself. The fact they keep referring to the rule of law only confirms they're willing to abuse it as they've done for seven years. 

This points to my last post about the voices in their heads. 

It matters little what Lametti personally believed - although I submit I believe he did make it personal when he said he tipped his hand revealing his overt contempt for the protests as not being legitimate and referred to them, as his comrades have, as 'occupiers'. Indeed, he barely accepted the peaceful protestors as legitimate because they were blocking streets and honking horns. When asked if there were legitimate peaceful protestors he said, 'I grant you that possibility'.

This is less a righteous man but one who believes himself a king it would appear. It's par for the course with this thin-skinned and arrogant Liberal party. Wholly unlikable. 

Alas, perhaps I'm being too hard on David. In a message to Mendocino he said 'Chief Slowly needed to act 'quick, quick, quick'. A line from his 'favorite movie' meant to be humorous. I had tagged to be a fan of 'Elf'. They all sit on a throne of lies, no? The situation was so 'dire' (to borrow a term from Anand's testimony" and Lametti so 'threatened' he had time to 'joke' about sending tanks. It was amateur hour at Yuks, Yuks starring Dave 'I'm just a human' Laaaaametti! /cue Vaudeville tune.

But he and Mendocino joking about tanks as they plotted to lie their way into Martial Law is no laughing mater.  On the contrary, it's stuff to take down despotic governments. Of which this one clearly is. Don't listen to me. Listen to their testimonies and read between the lines.

This sham of a testimony didn't end there. And here I thought Sabia and Mendocino were bad enough.

He said he had to split his time between Ottawa and Montreal saying, "I'm often alone and I would have been vulnerable". This from a privileged politician with a security detail. He made sure to keep reminding his staff is made up of women. All to create a setting where their safety was threatened. It was another example of the key tactic that has been the single key to this government's style of ruling: Through fear.

Just like any despotic cowards do.

It's worth reminding Justin Trudeau escaped Ottawa during the protests. Rather than stay and face it like men, Justin and David chose the passive-aggressive route. David's job was to beat the shit out of the Charter and EA and make it fit the narrative. He went as far as to admit his dictums extended to Americans when he said, "you ought to be worried' if you supported the protest in any way.

What a clear picture of the soul of this government.

He claims the invocation was narrow and short in duration but my guess is they had no intentions of keeping it short. The clear abuse was plain for the international community to see. The Europeans and Americans likely had concerns about the decision and some expressed it publicly. Canada's 'reputation' was being tarnished not by truckers but by the government itself. A government that lacked the humanity and humility to lay off mandates that had only political currency and did absolutely nothing to protect the overall health of Canadians.

Right. Like they did when they decided who was 'essential' and 'non-essential' destroying the lives of thousands if not millions through their mandates. The claim they worried for small businesses is a clear example of stank and stark hypocrisy.

It's quite remarkable alluding to 'mental health' Lametti claims the truckers hurt some people for a short period, which was never extended to the millions of Canadians who suffered through Trudeau's vindictive and cruel mandates which were the source of the protests in the first place. They act as though people aggrieved (and millions have been hurt directly by these ridiculous mandates) have no right to protest and then whine when they're questioned.

As an aside, I don't want to hear a public official say, 'good question'. It wreaks of paternalistic arrogance and presupposes they're our masters. Let's get one thing straight: Lametti, Mendocino, Anand, Freeland, Justin et al are servants.

And they must be deferent to us. That means having to answer all our questions and concerns without resorting to claims of 'misinformation' or feeling 'threatened'.

I really couldn't care less about David Lemetti's feelings of vulnerability. That he brought it up is something he needs to deal with as a man.

This can't be stressed enough.

He asserted, ironically, about the mental health aspect which I will delve into later. He further promulgated the usual disinformation tactic that the protests were blocking access to hospitals when in fact this was never a major issue as it was dealt with early on in the protests with police. 

David Lametti is a man of many hats and faces as he made sure to mention. He could conveniently weave around any line of questioning that got too close while getting full protection from government lawyers and ultimately Commissioner Rouleau. 

Indeed, lawyers cross-examining Lametti had time constraints and where they thought they could build a case, were stifled by typical government legalese about "solicitor-client privilege". Government lawyers could continue to repeat lies about the truckers (established to have not been true) without any resistance or objections.

All that was missing were actual kangaroos in the room. And a smoking money with a typewriter. 

It was clear we were not going to get at the truth with Lametti except for when he spewed the same overwrought claims Mendocino did yesterday. Which was - there were hypothetical threats.

It's quite interesting to hear him decline to answer hypotheticals when the government's entire premise rested on hypotheticals about the convoy degrading into violence. 

Which were never proven. 

But it never was about proof of anything or public health. Lametti himself basically said, smugly, the government can 'fill in gaps' between provincial and federal powers. I suppose laws evolve when you're busy not letting a crisis go to waste, eh Dave?  In other words, my characterization of this government playing Calvin Ball was correct. This is not a democracy. This is a banana republic. A regime.

Recall that Lametti is the Attorney-General that said Canadians have no property rights. At least I think that's the hat he was wearing at the time. The many faces and hats of Lametti indeed.

In the end, if the fear felt was sincere, well then Lametti et al. need to brush up on human nature. It is the government who accosted the people first. It coerced an experimental and failed gene editing mRNA technology into the bodies of millions without proper informed consent. They mauled Charter rights to pummel people into the desired outcome. 

This is the stuff of cowards and despots. 

As such, the principle of ethical reciprocity in the face of actual aggression applies I argue They claim to have been driven to not escalate the problem (even though it was Trudeau who engaged in counter-productive hate speech against the unvaccinated and truckers) and were looking for a "peaceful" end to the protests but in the end, they were looking for trouble. The tactic was to dehumanize truckers and the unvaccinated.

Always remember. ALL FOR A VIRUS with an overall 99.985%.

All this mayhem. For shame.

You didn't look good at all, David.

Onto Chrystia Freeland.

******

Please forgive if this post seems too free-form or disjointed, I did it in one draft and had to move on.

No time to proof-read.