Canadians Are Pushing Back Against this Summer’s “Climate Lockdowns”
Officials in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are facing lawsuits from Canadian citizen groups protesting the draconian forest use bans.
I recently reported that in Canada, the Nova Scotia government announced it’s banning hiking, camping, fishing and use of vehicles such as ATVs supposedly due to “an elevated wildfire risk”. The fine for violating the ban is $25,000.
This climate lockdown then expanded into another province.
In the face of extremely dry conditions, the New Brunswick government has banned access to all Crown land.
This means no fishing, camping, hiking, driving into the woods or using the trail systems. Camping is only allowed on campgrounds. The government has also requested private landowners to comply with the restrictions.
The restrictions come as the province battles 10 active fires with two major ones near Miramichi and Canterbury, while suffering from extremely dry conditions, a complete burn ban, and heat warnings in several regions.
However, at least some Canadians are beginning to push back against another wokeist lockdown. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is taking legal action against the Nova Scotia provincial government over the ban.
The CCF will argue that Nova Scotia’s Forests Act cannot be used to restrict access to all land meeting the very broad definition of “woods” and only allows for targeted restrictions in specific zones. The CCF is also concerned that the government has not properly considered or proportionately balanced the impact of the ban on Charter rights and values, including by creating an offence punishable by imprisonment which is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
“Sweeping restrictions like these undermine trust in public safety measures and raise serious questions about government overreach,” said Christine Van Geyn, Litigation Director for the CCF.
“Fining people thousands of dollars for no-risk activities like hiking or birdwatching is not a rational way to manage wildfire concerns,” she added. “The Forests Act doesn’t give the government the power to shut down access to all wooded areas across the province, and it certainly doesn’t allow that kind of power to be used without proper justification.”
Dehaas said that while the government has a legitimate interest in preventing wildfires, “any restrictions imposed must be lawful, proportionate and reasonable.”
“The current travel ban fails to meet these standards,” he added.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is taking Nova Scotia to court over the province’s outrageous ban on hiking, picnicking, and even birdwatching without a permit. pic.twitter.com/tRRLZ54Nq3
— Marcelo Antonio Oliveri = Projektil3 vomi7 (@MARICHIWEU10) August 15, 2025
Meanwhile, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has announced that a legal warning letter has been sent to Premier of New Brunswick Susan Holt and Minister of Natural Resources and Energy Development John Herron, demanding them to reverse their province-wide ban.
Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic states that these sweeping restrictions violate Canadians’ right to liberty – protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ms. Pejovic writes that “walking through the woods and fishing do not pose a risk of starting fires. Punishing Canadians by restricting their freedom to roam and enjoy nature is disproportionate and not rationally connected to preventing forest fires.”
Less restrictive measures, such as banning smoking and recreational fires, increasing patrols on Crown land, and improving forest management, could address legitimate fire concerns without violating citizens’ liberty.
The letter cautions that if the province proceeds with “overbroad, arbitrary, and grossly disproportionate restrictions,” the province could face a legal challenge and be brought to heel in court.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has issued a legal warning to the New Brunswick Premier and Natural Resources Minister, demanding they scrap what it calls an “overbroad” and “grossly disproportionate” ban on public access to Crown land.
READ MORE:… pic.twitter.com/8c7vH1ry3J
— Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) August 12, 2025
Geologist and climate expert Dr. Matthew Wielicki offers a detailed look at the environmental and climate realities in Canada, and asserts there is absolutely no need for these draconian measures…unless the goal is training people to accept ludicrous amounts of government control by bureaucratic entities.
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) August 12, 2025
I wish the two Canadian groups fighting against the forest use bans good luck, and hope it is not too late to save some personal liberties.
Sensible moves may help them retain the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which are poised to unleash a independence movement that will likely gain more popularity in the face of these senseless eco-restrictions.
At this rate Saskatchewan may end up pushing a referendum on Sovereignty before Alberta gets around to it.
Canada is losing the West. https://t.co/xWhsVTE3Wa
— Michael Thomlinson (@miket136) August 13, 2025
Here’s hoping for the best possible outcomes to these cases, for any of the independent-minded Canadians who may still exist.
Thoughts and prayers, Canada. https://t.co/YgqMMO5vsz pic.twitter.com/RBBduodPdT
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) August 15, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You were stupid enough to elect an EU globalist that openly said that ‘climate’ has to be included in every decision.
Enjoy getting exactly what you voted for, Canada, good and hard.
They didn’t elect him. (Well they did in one riding). They elected his party and he is the leader of that party. This is the real flaw in the parliamentary system. You can like your own rep but hate the leader of they party, so what do you do?
Actually, their system is better for this kind of issue because you can vote for an adjacently aligned party with a better leader. It may not change the outcome but neither would not voting.
Our system is more rigid in choosing a leader because no one who is from a party other than the two has won the big election since America was in its infancy.
Also, their leaders frequently resign when they are unwanted by enough of the populace..
No, they don’t. They only resign if their party is about to kick them out, because it fears losing the next election. Just like speakers of the house here.
Actually, their system is better for this kind of issue because you can vote for an adjacently aligned party with a better leader. You can do that here too, for the same good it will do there. In any given seat there’s usually only two viable candidates, and a vote for an alternative candidate only means giving half a vote to the major one you like least. Just likehere.
You can do that here too, for the same good it will do there. In any given seat there’s usually only two viable candidates, and a vote for an alternative candidate only means giving half a vote to the major one you like least. Just like here.
Now with preferential voting (“ranked choice”, “instant runoff”, whatever you want to call it) you can do exactly that. Vote for an alternative on our side without risking giving a win to the other side. Vote Libertarian and preference the RINO over the Dem. But neither the USA nor Canada has that. If the UK had it Labour would not have won the last election.
Find a new party to support when the party you’ve been supporting keeps imposing totalitarian buffoonery masquerading as serious policy. Kinda like when you put your hand on a hot stove, most people figure out very quickly not to do it again….though others do seem to be slow learners.
How is that different from here, where you might like your local R but not like Johnson?
Just like when Zero bama closed the parks vindictively.
This reeks of you peasants will suffer while I am above the consequences.
Reminds me of the Sheriff of Nottingham keeping the riff-raff off Crown lands.
Keeping poachers out is completely different. We don’t allow poaching on state land either.
And isn’t it ironic?
Don’t you think?
That Canadian Citizens were ‘Uninvited’ to enjoy their public lands?
I saw what you did there
Part of Oregon’s response to WuFlu was to close down the state parks and all hiking trails. I guess it was to protect those spotted owls, or sumptin.
“Just joking, that’s Canada.”
I knew that. North Koreans can’t afford ATVs.
Eva Chipiuk – peaceful Freedom truck convoy lawyer’s accounts will de-banked in Canada?
RBC Royal Bank is de-banking a Canadian hero.?
The Canadians, like most of America, had proven during COVID, that they are gutless and allowed government to carry their testicles in a purse.
Canadians are now facing the consequences, and have been, when they elected Trudeau and allowed his reign of supremacy on them.
Much like our own Biden.
Canada needs a Trump.
I would guess the broad nature of the ban has to do with cigarette smokers and the entitled attitude that they can smoke anywhere anytime. When they find cigarette butts trailside they went after the problem in the only way they could, but they should admit why.
Why shouldn’t people smoke outside if they are behaving responsibly? Blaming every smoker for some jackass who tossed his butts haphazardly is like blaming every driver for super speeders.
Tell you what, I’ll give you no smoking outside but ONLY if you grant a return to indoor smoking like it was 1945…in offices, elevators, planes, trains, buses, diners, restaurants, bars, schools….everywhere… except the home of an intolerant non smoker. The Covid Karens reminded me of exactly how smokers were treated by the anti smoking totalitarians as indoor smoking was banned.
Realistically the odds are the fires are being caused by homeless weirdos lighting badly contained campfires, oddball eco activists trying to ‘cleanse’ the forest/create a panic or mental whackos.
While I’ll agree that smoking may POSSIBLY cause forest fires (any former smoker will tell you how hard it is to light a campfire or even a sheet of paper with a cigarette) the evidence clearly shows that lightning strikes and deliberate or accidental arson is the main spark. Smoking, at least has the advantage of making the hazard 100% containable, if people are encouraged to fully extinguish their smokes; lighting and homeless campfires, not so much.
Eco-crazy forestry non-management, where fuel loads are allowed to get to incendiary levels would be the reason that fires which DO start (and they WILL start, inevitably) are much more difficult to contain.
Also the modern denial that cleansing forest fires are a necessary and appropriate tool to keep forests healthy makes every year of NORMAL rainfall and good forest growth INCREASE the hazard of devastating fire.
Its an unsustainable policy for healthy productive forest lands, not to mention a spear through the heart of any semblance of Canadian liberty.
Agreed. I meant eco whackos would attempt to ‘cleanse’ not of undergrowth/ladder fuel but in some hippie/one with nature sense by tactics designed to get the Gov’t (staffed with fellow travelers) to overreact and shut down public access.
We still have folks in 2025 who argue against basic, common sense forestry practices after the examples decade upon decade of bad results from their negligent alternative. It’s hard to assign to ignorance at this point and suggests a deliberate goal to generate massive fires which effectively block public use.
I’m so glad smoking is banned indoors. I can’t stand the smell, don’t want to breathe that poison, and shouldn’t have to because some addict can’t control himself.
Even when I still smoked I mostly agreed with the exception of bars/clubs. On the other hand do we apply the same ‘offensive smell’ rule to perfume and cologne? How about someone bringing in a Rueben sandwich or Kimchi or something equally aromatic and offensive? What about the war on peanuts?
Where do we draw the line? IMO the answer is pretty simple. The context of the location. If you don’t like cigarette smoke don’t go to a bar/club. If you have a peanut allergy or get your hackles up over Kimchi don’t sit in the public break room go elsewhere where you can isolate yourself away from it. Let the smokers have a place to smoke without being hassled or being ostracized at work. FWIW I hate the smell of both pot and patchouli so I avoid going places where hippies are present or pot is smoked.
We got weirdo, drug addled, mentally ill often dangerous vagrants and hobos often dangerous, illegally camping in public, harassing folks, thieving to support their lifestyle, dropping deuces on the street and we still have folks worked up about indoor smoking. It’s possible society can walk and chew gum simultaneously but I’d recommend we prioritize lots of other societal problems ahead of indoor smoking.
My assessment is that cigarette smokers don’t care about themselves, so why would I expect them to care about anyone else. Take that 10-100x for tweekers and those who smoke fentanyl in public.
IDK man, when I still smoked I often found myself doing so to calm down and to keep from putting my hands on some jackass caught red handed in a display of gross jackassery. So IOW I did it for the benefit of others when the alternative was gonna be violence.
I believe this is the leading edge of the UN/WEF scheme to ‘Rewild’ the rural areas. Both provinces are essentially parasitic attachments of the federal liberal party who buy into that Agenda 30 ludicrous plot.