The Insatiable Desire for Government Schlong

Yet another Propaganda piece posing as 'Journalism' from Canadian Establishment Media

I woke up this morning to a somewhat frantic text message from an associate, linking me to the latest piece of Walter Duranty level regime fellating from the Canadian Media, this time from the National Post. The Post, being something of a center right publication, ought to be a little more skeptical of the situation out at Coutts, and anything said about it by Cathedral Nord, given their usually fair treatment of the Freedom Convoy overall, but not today.

I am unfamiliar with the author, whose own personal website appears straight out of 1996 and has not been updated since 2014. In the same vein as the utterly lopsided interview given on the CBC show ‘Front Burner’ a couple of months ago, Xer Humphreys (who knows what sex these goblins are, better not to assume) is ostensibly a crime writer, but throughout this article, we see they/xer/xim/dickhead is completely uninterested in the crimes on display by the state. We may not know their gender, but we definitely see the faith system which the author worships.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-the-mixed-verdict-in-the-coutts-freedom-convoy-blockade-trial-really-means

Let’s get into it, shall we?


In the first few paragraphs ….

Just how future historians might view the Coutts protest — the people, the weapons, the doomsday last-stand culture, the camaraderie, the networking, the anti-government rhetoric, the frailty of the economy and infrastructure, the robust police response, and the outsized role it had for the invocation of the Emergencies Act — is anyone’s guess.

The trial featured testimony from anonymous undercover police officers, all women, who infiltrated the protest; apocalyptic text messages shared by hardcore protesters; allegations of government duplicity and political infringement in the justice system; and a jarring police interrogation of a protester accused of a plot to kill Mounties.

Interesting how Comrade Humphreys (maybe Comrade is a better honorific than attempting to guess the gender of this creature) makes an allusion to ‘government duplicity and political infringement’ in this case, and then fails to mention, throughout the rest of the entire fucking article, that the Coutts Four were denied bail under very murky circumstances, and kept in remand for quite a stretch; Jerry Morin and Chris Lysak for two years, Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick still in there, 31 months and counting, despite the not guilty verdict.

Humphreys also fails to mention that Morin and Olienick were kept for long stretches of solitary confinement, a recognized form of torture, during their very politicized and lengthy stay in remand. Huh. Wonder how Comrade Humphreys missed that?

I know why - Humphreys, like every other single fucking ‘reporter’ in Canada has failed to contact the defense side of this case, be that any of the family members, advocates, or citizen journalists like myself who have covered this case for well over a year now.

I want to stop here and remind my readers of this very, very important fact about this long running travesty of injustice - not Adrian Humphreys, not Bill ‘Massive Co-morbidities’ Graveland of The Canadian Press, not Allana Smith of the Globe and Mail, not the harpy contributor to the Toronto Star, Gillian Steward, nor the host of the above mentioned ‘Front Burner’, Jayme ‘Fish(y)’ Poisson, has bothered their asses to ask a single goddamn question of anyone on the other side of this case.

NOT ONE.

You might be wondering why I’m using profanity like this; well, after watching the lies and disinformation pile up in this way, and after receiving a wall of silence after contacting many of these people and their respective organizations in an effort to correct their ‘mistakes’ and omissions, I’m just a tad frustrated.

Like everyone else in the media, Comrade Humphreys is very, very fixated on the guns, and just like everyone else in the media, fails to inform you of the details surrounding them, lest those important details mute the emotional response they are attempting to extract from their readers.

The RCMP announced the next day that officers seized 13 long guns, two handguns, two sets of body armour, a machete, a large quantity of ammunition, and high-capacity magazines around Coutts, and arrested a dozen people. In Lethbridge provincial court, prosecutors revealed that four of those arrested faced charges of conspiracy to commit murder.

A photograph released by the RCMP showed seized guns, ammo, other weapons, and tactical vests. One vest is decorated with a logo for Diagolon, a network described in the public inquiry report on the Emergencies Act as “a militia-like extremist organization.”

No mention that a number of these guns didn’t belong to the four men arrested, no mention that Jerry Morin was barely at Coutts whatsoever, no mention of the other groups involved, no mention that the Diagolon connection was a non-entity in the trial, and that the screeching about this podcast fanboy group in the media was completely false and manufactured.

No mention of any of the other countervailing facts about the guns, that they were stored away from the protest site on private property, and that hey, guess what, its not illegal to have them, and that the protesters had a legitimate claim to self defense, given the activities of such groups as Antifa at another Freedom Convoy protest site.


Getting back to Jerry Morin -

By the time a trial against those accused of the guns and murder plot at the border blockade was set, the Coutts Four had become the Coutts Two: This February, Lysak pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of possession of a weapon in an unauthorized place, and Morin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms. In the plea deals, the more serious charges of a plot to kill Mounties were withdrawn against the pair.

You would think that all of the original charges being dropped against these guys might elicit some more questions from our esteemed colleagues in the media.

For Morin, an agreed statement of facts says he was asked to bring his “guitar and amplifier” to the protest area, which was code for guns and ammunition. He agreed, the document says.

If Comrade Humphreys had been at trial in Lethbridge, or maybe been a reader of this substack, or the works of legitimate journalists like Ray McGinnis or Roxanne Halverson, or maybe followed the twitter of Rob Kraychik, he would know a few important things here -

That ‘agreed statement of facts’ was actually a false confession, and everyone involved in producing this document knows it. Justice David Labrenz, presiding over this trial, instructed the jury that this ‘statement of facts’ wasn’t worth the paper it is written on, as these types of pleas, extracted from those who will do anything to get out of jail, are about as reliable as astrology. Remember, Jerry Morin did two years in remand, PRE-TRIAL, which included long stretches of solitary confinement.

I am told by those close to Mr Morin that applications are underway to have that document officially rescinded; Humphreys might know that, too, if it has bothered to ask.

We also saw the ‘coded language’ allegations by the RCMP all disproven in court via multiple witness testimony, and at one point Marilyn Burns brought into court the very guitar which RCMP claimed were guns.

I don’t know who is doing the fact checking at the National Post, but they ought to be fired, or some kind of retraction statement issued, lest these guys ultimately be sued by Jerry Morin and everyone else for slander and defamation.

I don’t know why this is so hard for Humphreys, or the post, or anyone else. The Obese Liar Bill Graveland was either in court or had people there feeding him information, and he lied about this as well. You can contact Lethbridge courthouse and get transcripts of the trial, you can contact others who were there, you could have followed Rob Kraychik’s daily tweets from court. No, they have to lie to you instead.


As we go through the rest of the article, Humphreys spends many paragraphs repeating, verbatim, claims of the Undercovers, but only briefly mentions that no recordings of any of the alleged verbiage of Olienick or Carbert exist. Gee, you think maybe the fact that the jury also saw through this gaping hole in the case, which lead them to render the ‘not guilty’ verdict, might give Humphreys pause before repaeting all of this garbage ad nauseam?

This is not reporting, this is a smear job.

Later in the piece Humphreys refers to Carbert’s lawyer, Katherin Beyak, as Katherin Beya. A typo, perhaps, but also an indicator of this extremely sloppy work.

The pipe bomb thing is also mentioned, but as I have shown multiple times, that charge was opportunistic on the part of the Crown, and had nothing to do with the protest.

From a previous substack -

Though some media eventually acknowledged that the ‘pipe bombs’ were, in fact, industrial explosives, they left out yet more critical details about them, any questions about the charge, and why it was laid.

Tony Olienick was found guilty of ‘possession of an explosive device’, and in some technical sense, he is guilty, given that whatever permits he may have had were out of date, and it seems that his defense counsel didn’t have them as evidence. The ‘bombs’ themselves were also out of date, assembled in 2010 by Tony’s late father, George. They were rusted pretty bad, and the explosives expert witness called by the Crown testified to difficulty in disassembling them, and having to ‘break them open’ so as to test the materials inside.

—

The possession charge was a smooth move on the part of The Crown, an opportunity to expand the number of charges against Olienick after RCMP raided his property near Claresholm, Alberta, nearly 200km away from the protest site. Despite the fact that one of Tony’s business associates testified at trial as to their industrial use, and that they were old, and that Tony and his late father had a history of using them, this testimony was all irrelevant in the face of the charge. Tony ‘possessed’ them, in a storage container at a gravel quarry 200km away, and the fact that these explosives had nothing to do with the protest at Coutts is the point.

The Crown was absolutely aware that the explosives had nothing to do with the other charges, but they were able to pad their case, and further prejudice any jury, and more specifically, prejudice the court of public opinion, by charging him anyway. Notice how it’s not possession for ‘a dangerous purpose’ or ‘with intent to harm’ or that there was no attempt by the Crown to otherwise make a legitimate connection between the explosives and the protest? They couldn’t, but the simple possession charge would be enough to make Tony Olienick, as well as his co-defendants, into murderous devils in the minds of the public, and would be an easy enough point to score in court.

Again, if Humphreys was interested in the truth, and not smearing these guys, he could have read my work here at Substack, or over at Newsweek, or contacted relevant people involved with the case. Alas.


Near the end of the piece, in a failed effort at redeeming itself and putting on airs of ‘objectivity’, Humphreys gets a quote which questions the charges.

Christine Van Geyn, litigation director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a public interest group that successfully challenged the government’s invocation of the act in Federal Court, said the Coutts verdict suggests government overreach against the convoy protesters.

“There is good reason to believe that the most serious charges were actually overcharges by the Crown to create pressure on the defendants to accept a plea,” Van Geyn said.

And then re-engages the smear campaign, by talking to some Cathedral Nord operative who implies that peaceful protesters are terrorists.

“Why weren’t terrorism charges used? We charge someone with terrorism offences for attacking someone with sporting equipment in a Canadian Tire. You could make the case that if this (activity at Coutts) had been done in the name of any other ideology, potentially you’d be looking at terrorism charges,” said Stephanie Carvin, a professor specializing in national security and critical infrastructure protection at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

Our ruling caste just can’t let go of the fact that they didn’t get their January 6 Nord, so they pine after it anyway with longing, like a jilted lover with an unfulfilled rape fantasy.


This piece by the National Post is yet another in a long line of trucks carrying steaming garbage to the landfill, which is where it belongs, only to be re-exhumed whenever these clowns are taken to civil court and charged with libel and defamation.

One last thing - the timing of this Post smear job is fortuitous, given yesterday’s speech from RFK Jr, where he announced the folding of his campaign, and that he would be throwing his support behind President Trump.

A fixture of his speech were the legitimate criticisms leveled against the Democratic Party, and their partners in media who made his candidacy difficult, as they worked alongside DNC lawyers and their gross abuse of Lawfare, engaged in to nullify the efforts of his campaign team.

When you consider what has been done to the Coutts Four, the 2 and a half years of incarceration, the lawfare, the smear and disinformation jobs in the Canadian media, does any of this begin to sound familiar?

In the name of saving democracy, a Democratic Party set itself to dismantle it. Lacking confidence that its candidate could win a fair election at the voting booth, the DNC waged continual legal warfare against both President Trump and myself. Each time that our volunteers turned in those towering boxes of the signatures needed to get on the ballot the DNC dragged us into court, state after state, attempting to erase their work, and to subvert the will of the voters who had signed those petitions. It deployed DNC-aligned judges to throw me and other candidates off the ballot and to throw President Trump in jail. It ran a sham primary that was rigged to prevent any serious challenge to President Biden. Then, when a predictably awful debate performance precipitated a palace coup against President Biden, the same shadowy DNC operatives appointed his successor, also without an election. They installed a candidate who was so unpopular with voters that she dropped out in 2020 without winning a single delegate. 

—

I do interviews every day. Many of you have interviewed me. Anybody who asks gets to interview me. Some days I do as many as ten. President Trump, who actually was nominated and won an election, also does interviews daily. How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answers. It did it by weaponizing the government agencies. It did it abandoning democracy. It did it by suing the opposition, and by disenfranchising American voters. 

What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship, media control, and weaponization of the federal agencies. When a U.S. president colludes with, or outright coerces, media companies to censor political speech, it’s an attack on our most sacred right of free expression. And that’s the very right upon which all of our other constitutional rights rest. 

You can read the whole transcript here -

https://im1776.com/2024/08/24/rfk-address-to-the-nation/


As I have mentioned many times before, Canadian Political pundits and media whores are constantly going on about ‘Trumpism’ or ‘Toxic Populism’ being imported to Canada, usually paired with histrionic bromides about Pierre Poilievre.

I would submit to you that what has been imported to Canada from America is a fear of regular people and their concerns, the media practice of shoring up regime narratives with the employ of outright lies and omission, and the use of Lawfare on the part of the state to fight its enemies, even when those enemies are guilty of nothing.

Adrian Humphreys and The National Post once again prove that you don’t hate the media enough.

You think you do, but you don’t.