Dave Freedom

The Ottawa Crown is bringing former Ontario MPP Randy Hillier back to court. Before his successful 11(b) application (which was later overturned on appeal), Randy fully intended to proceed with a trial by judge and jury. As he mentions below, more updates coming soon: Here’s what he had to say yesterday: “Although I have beaten 34 charges against me, the machine won’t give up. Thank you to everyone who has reached out with messages of support after yesterday’s disappointing court ruling. Your solidarity means everything and reminds us we’re in this fight together. I am deeply disappointed in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on March 20 to overturn the stay of these politically motivated Freedom Convoy charges. Four years later, the lawfare continues. If you’d like to help: Donate to our Legal Defence Fund at nomorelockdowns.ca/donate (e-transfer also available) Contact Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Attorney General Doug Downey and ask them to drop this case: premier@ontario.ca attorneygeneral@ontario.ca"

Dan and many thousands of others just want acknowledgment. It’s fair to say many people commenting here lean conservative, but that doesn’t mean we can’t question or criticize the blue team. Support shouldn’t mean silence. Holding your own side accountable matters more, not less. Opposing mandates was the easy part. Politically, it was a no brainer because the alternative would have cost him a large portion of his base. But leadership is not about taking the safe position when it is convenient. When families started raising concerns, when troubling patterns were being discovered, that's when a leader is needed the most. The damage is still ongoing. He was willing to speak out against oxycotin and challenge powerful interests there. So the real question is why stop there? If the principle is protecting people and holding institutions accountable, then it should not depend on what is politically safe to say. It should apply across the board. People do not expect perfection, but they do expect consistency and the willingness to at least acknowledge what many have experienced.

He was talking to Americans about tariffs. Joe did not raise it why would Polievre? He would have been attacked. As it is no one on the left has managed to find anything of substance to criticize him, not because he said what they want but because he made so much sense. Now the right criticizes for what he didn’t say…

So many thought this was a great interview. I thought it was a piece of shit. Once again, it wasn't spoken about, which is why he will lose again. Very strange Joe has talked about it many times but not this time. FUCKING PRIORITIES 😡🤮 SupportSean.ca

Opposing mandates was the easy part. Politically, it was a no brainer because the alternative would have cost him a large portion of his base. But leadership is not about taking the safe position when it is convenient. When families started raising concerns, when troubling patterns were being discovered, that's when a leader is needed the most. He was willing to speak out against oxycotin and challenge powerful interests there. So the real question is why stop there? If the principle is protecting people and holding institutions accountable, then it should not depend on what is politically safe to say. It should apply across the board. People do not expect perfection, but they do expect consistency and the willingness to at least acknowledge what many have experienced.

@DaveFreedom4 He supported individual rights to choose with the vaccine did he not?

Dan Hartman now awaits the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on whether his case will proceed in Superior Court, as he seeks justice after the loss of his son following “the shot.” answers4sean.ca

Point not missed. He spoke up about OxyContin, but not about the V which conitnues to harm. The question is, why not? You’ve said politicians should stay in their lane, yet in the case of OxyContin, Pierre clearly didn’t. So that standard doesn’t seem to apply consistently. You brought up OxyContin as a “gotcha,” but it actually highlights the contradiction in your own argument.

@DaveFreedom4 No, you missed my point. OxyContin is a pill version of heroin that was peddled as safe for years.

You don’t see a problem here? Pierre will criticize OxyContin but stays silent on the mother of all killers? How many people do you know personally affected by OxyContin? It matters, no doubt. But I can ask 10 random people and chances are someone knows someone who’s had serious issues or death. You’re proving my point even more. Politicians only speak when it’s been 'green lit', when it’s safe, when the narrative allows it. Netflix even has a series on OxyContin by the way.

@DaveFreedom4 You mean like OxyContin, which was peddled as safe for years?

Maybe this example helps, because I think the topic of 'V' itself is clouding the point. Imagine heroin were suddenly legalized tomorrow, hospitals and pharmacists said it was safe and effective, and millions of Canadians were encouraged to take it. Then reports start coming out that people are dying in the thousands. Should a politician with influence stay quiet because they’re not a doctor? Or should they at least say, "what’s going on here", and push for answers? That’s the point.

@DaveFreedom4 So we agree that it’s not parliaments job to tell people what to think, but protect their right to refuse. Glad we agree.

Ah yes, I’ve heard that argument many times. “I’m fine, so stop complaining.” But it doesn’t undo the harm or bring anyone back. And I agree, a politician’s job isn’t to tell people what to think. But they do have a responsibility to speak up when serious concerns are being raised, especially when so many Canadians have been impacted and unheard on a large scale.

@DaveFreedom4 There were also people that got the vaccine that were perfectly fine. It’s not a parliamentarian’s job to tell you what to think, it’s their job to ensure the choice is yours.

So let me get this straight. I’m an active member of Parliament with real influence, and I’m seeing reports of deaths in the thousands linked to the V (blood clots). Are you saying I should stay quiet because it’s “not my lane”? At what point does that lane merge into mine? How many more deaths does it take before that responsibility becomes impossible to ignore?

@DaveFreedom4 Mandates are what politicians had control over, not the vaccines themselves. So you agree that politicians should stay in their lane then.

@JaneD1616183 Acknowledging the harms the experimental drug has caused works for me. Simply being critical of mandates doesn't cut it. This was a no-brainer as many of this voters were against mandates.

@DaveFreedom4 Do you agree that he should be critical of Carney since Carney’s is objectively harming Canadians.

@JaneD1616183 Every active politician has a duty to speak up when Canadians are being harmed (in power or not).

@DaveFreedom4 What does this have to do with Pierre? The liberals were in power.

FACT: People have been seriously harmed and concerns continue to grow. This is not some conspiracy. All Pierre has to do is say, “Something doesn’t add up here and we need answers.” That kind of honesty would resonate across the country. Even those who don’t support him would take notice if he was willing to challenge the narrative. He could win the election tomorrow.

To recuse or not to recuse… that Is the question Will Wagner do the right thing, or will the stink of corruption permeate the halls of the Supreme Court? Calls grow for Chief Justice Wagner to consider recusal over Freedom Convoy comments

🚨 BREAKING The Carney government has taken Justice Mosley’s Emergencies Act ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada just before the deadline expired. Nothing says "FU" to Canadians than filing an appeal at the very last possible minute. Filed so late it wasn’t even on the SCC website the last time I checked at 5PM. The courts found the Act was used unlawfully. Now we’re watching our tax dollars go toward appealing a decision already made in Federal Court and upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Most people who simply “go with the flow” aren’t seeing our posts on X or Facebook. Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there in the physical world. Watching someone’s thinking change in real time (seeing that programming break) is one of the most rewarding experiences there is.

The people of Nunavut trusted their MP to represent them. Now Lori Idlout’s move has pushed the Liberal Communist Party one step closer to a majority government.

Sometimes a simple cartoon explains things best… if you know, you know.

@SperoInDeo This isn’t about hate, the Criminal Code already addresses that. It’s about control and censorship, just like in 2020 when everything was done “for your safety.”

@DaveFreedom4 The Catholic Church teaches that to hate is to wish someone grave harm. I will never accept any other definition.

Thought I’d use the Dilbert cartoon style to explain a portion of Bill C-9 (the 'Combatting Hate' Act) before it passes. If the House of Commons passes Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, Canada could move closer to countries like the United Kingdom where more than 30 citizens are reportedly arrested every day over offensive tweets and social media posts.

@NorthernObservr @DonaldBestCA You can also do it through a regular browser so no install needed (option for both).

@DaveFreedom4 @DonaldBestCA Requires Webex install. All good.

BREAKING: Putting an 80-year promise to the test! In 1947, Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to write freedom into law through the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Nearly 80 years later, Erinn Knoll will test those freedoms in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after being charged for participating in a peaceful protest against the draconian lockdown measures in 2021. TODAY: R. v. Knoll 11 AM EST Watch this historic appeal hearing live at 11AM EST (click link below): skcourts.webex.com/wbxmjs/joinser…