The secondary purpose of lockdowns is to curtail freedom of speech per the Canadian government

Woof!  From Canada.  Lockdowns and restrictions have been opposed on many grounds (they don't work, they have unintended negative health consequences, there is little or no scientific evidence of their efficacy, they are not worth the economic destruction, etc.) but philosophically one of the most germane has been that lockdowns are an unconstitutional arrogation to government of the natural rights and freedom of citizens.

Canada is obviously not constrained by our Constitution or tradition of rights and freedoms but state bureaucrats everywhere seem to be singing from the same song book.  This Canadian official doesn't sound any different from American government spokespersons except that he is unexpectedly transparent.  

In this instance, the State is saying that the need for lockdowns is to control freedom of speech and in particular to stop the spread of facts and opinions with which the State disagrees.  

I am not sure they were supposed to say that out loud.  

REPORT: No longer about health. Canada will prevent groups from gathering in order to stop the spread of 'unauthorized information'. pic.twitter.com/WM381SGnCC

— New Granada (@NewGranada1979) June 27, 2021

Transcript:

We still have large numbers of people coming together which can present a risk.  We will continue to look at the purpose of the injunction which is to prevent groups who are deliberately spreading false information that can create risk to the public as well.  There is certainly a need to manage that misinformation campaign.  

The secondary purpose of lockdowns is to curtail freedom of speech and restrict speech to those views sanctioned by the State?  

That has long been a reasonable interpretation of what was going on but to have it confirmed so baldly is astonishing.