McGuinty won't apologize for secret G20 law

[GostHacked]

There was also no secret amendment to the act; Acts of Parliament can only be amended by parliament itself, not by Order-in-Council, as the articles claim.

These special powers were in addition to the existing Public Works Act. The articles I posted indicated that.

Still no explanation as to why he felt it right to put this in the Federal Politics section, either. I suspect he thinks this all has something to do with Harper, ultimately. But GH won't dispel that suspicion.

I did explain it.

[g_bambino]

These special powers were in addition to the existing Public Works Act. The articles I posted indicated that.

You said you were here to make us aware of something. Can you please be specific about what that something is?

I did explain it.

"Because I wanted to" is not an explanation.

[GostHacked]

You said you were here to make us aware of something. Can you please be specific about what that something is?

I said some would understand and some would not understand. Go read the OP again to understand.

"Because I wanted to" is not an explanation.

That's the only one you are going to get.

[g_bambino]

Go read the OP again to understand.

If I understood what you were supposedly making me aware of, would I be asking for clarification? You aren't specific and, in light of that fact, one is left to only guess at what you're on about until you explain yourself with more certainty. You can shout "secret law! secret law!" with panic all you want, but nobody will comprehend what you're in a tizzy about until you present to your audience this secret law so that they can assured of its existence; you know, actually make us aware of what you say we need to be aware of.

That's the only one you are going to get.

In other words: I'm not going to get any elucidation at all. One wonders what you're trying to hide by evading the question.

[GostHacked]

If I understood what you were supposedly making me aware of, would I be asking for clarification? You aren't specific and, in light of that fact, one is left to only guess at what you're on about until you explain yourself with more certainty. You can shout "secret law! secret law!" with panic all you want, but nobody will comprehend what you're in a tizzy about until you present to your audience this secret law so that they can assured of its existence; you know, actually make us aware of what you say we need to be aware of.

Can you read?

Special powers granted.

Special powers NOT granted.

McGuinty not apologizing for granting special powers (only to find out they never were granted).

It's really not that hard to understand.

In other words: I'm not going to get any elucidation at all. One wonders what you're trying to hide by evading the question.

Well, your questions are more of a distraction from the real issue at hand here. I am not evading. I don't have any real reason. I put it there because I felt like it. You want to deal with the OP or sidetrack the issue and bitch about where the thread is posted? Or will it make you actually address the issue if I put it in Provincial Politics?

[g_bambino]

McGuinty not apologizing for granting special powers (only to find out they never were granted).

Of course there were no special powers granted by a secret law. Why, then should there be an apology for something that never happened? Hence, the mystery of what you think it is the Premier should be apologising for, this thing you said you were making us aware of.

I put it there because I felt like it.

That's been clear from the start. The question was always: why? Perhaps you just can't differentiate between provincial and federal matters. Or, maybe you wanted to get the maximum from your hyperventilation by doing it in a more high traffic, though inappropriate, part of the forums. But, no matter, you're not going to say.

[GostHacked]

Of course there were no special powers granted by a secret law.

Of course, there were no special powers. That only found out after the summit was over.

Why, then should there be an apology for something that never happened?

Well that's the thing. Why apologize for something that was not done? What is he trying to say or prove? Hence the reason I made the post. I am glad you see/understand at least THAT much.

Hence, the mystery of what you think it is the Premier should be apologising for, this thing you said you were making us aware of.

Why would anyone apologize for something that they did not do?

That's been clear from the start. The question was always: why? Perhaps you just can't differentiate between provincial and federal matters. Or, maybe you wanted to get the maximum from your hyperventilation by doing it in a more high traffic, though inappropriate, part of the forums. But, no matter, you're not going to say.

Why are you spending more time fucking bitching about WHERE the post is, instead of dealing with the thread itself? If you feel it is in the wrong spot, go make a complaint then.

[g_bambino]

Of course, there were no special powers.

So, for what reason did you blatantly attack the government? It appears as though the only group with a grasp on reality is the Cabinet; you appear to be harassing its members for expressing the truth. Hence, the confusion.

Why are you spending more time fucking bitching about WHERE the post is, instead of dealing with the thread itself?

Clearly I'm capable of doing both. And, it's entirely possible the two subjects are related.

[GostHacked]

So, for what reason did you blatantly attack the government?

Hmm, see this thread, the other G20 threads.

It appears as though the only group with a grasp on reality is the Cabinet; you appear to be harassing its members for expressing the truth. Hence, the confusion.

Absolute bullshit. But tell me, what is the truth?

I'll type slowly this one last time just for you. Unless you are purposefuly being obtuse.

1 - Special powers granted to police(before summit).

2 - No special powers granted to police during the summit (found out after the summit).

3 - McGuinty makes no apologies about #1.

The only truthful statement above is #2.

I've entertained you longer than I should have.

[g_bambino]

Absolute bullshit.

What appears more and more to be bullshit is your faux outrage; you don't seem to know which way to direct your anger, which pretty much dimishishes the seriousness with which anyone's going to take it.

If you agree with the government's assertion that no special powers were granted under any secret law, why do you attack the government for saying so? Do you think the erroneous claims made by the Toronto Police are the government's fault? Are the media's mistakes the government's fault? The speed at which you type will make absolutely no difference to the clarity of the resulting composition of words.

[GostHacked]

What appears more and more to be bullshit is your faux outrage; you don't seem to know which way to direct your anger, which pretty much dimishishes the seriousness with which anyone's going to take it.

Actually you and a few other thick skulls, are trying to diminish the seriousness of this, by saying there was no problem.

If you agree with the government's assertion that no special powers were granted under any secret law, why do you attack the government for saying so?

The government lied to us. And you seem to be ok with that.

Do you think the erroneous claims made by the Toronto Police are the government's fault?

What claims would that be?

Are the media's mistakes the government's fault?

What mistakes did the media make?

[Saipan]

I'll type slowly this one last time

Does fast typing make you dizzy?

[g_bambino]

The government lied to us.

Can you point to exactly when this happened?

What claims would that be?

That the Public Works Protection Act applied outside the fence around the secure area.

What mistakes did the media make?

Reporting the police's claims without checking further. Claiming laws had been amended or created in secret.

[GostHacked]

Can you point to exactly when this happened?

Yes.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/80755--ontario-ombudsman-to-investigate-secret-g20-law

The law, which was passed on June 2nd, declared that all streets and sidewalks inside the summit security fence were a 'public work', giving police the right to search people in the area.

But many believed the law allowed police to search people who came within five metres of the fence. As a result numerous people were searched, with some arrested and detained.

It was only after the summit was over that the province and police set the record straight and admitted that the 'five-metre' law wasn't in fact legitimate.

And your next statement is addressed above.

That the Public Works Protection Act applied outside the fence around the secure area.

Reporting the police's claims without checking further. Claiming laws had been amended or created in secret.

The police did not claim anything as far as I know. It was the Ontario government that claimed the special powers were given to police. Then admitted the powers were never given.

How much more do you want to troll today? I am calling you out on it right now.

[GostHacked]

http://www.ontariopc.com/news-releases/dalton-mcguinty-must-come-clean-and-reveal-his-role-in-passing-the-secret-g20-law/

QUEEN’S PARK — Today, Garfield Dunlop, MPP and PC Critic for Community Safety and Correctional Services, called on Dalton McGuinty to show Ontario families the respect they deserve and finally come clean about his role in passing the secret G20 law that Ontario’s Ombudsman described as likely illegal, unconstitutional and a mass violation of civil rights.

Today, Chief Justice Roy McMurtry submitted his report on the secret G20 law to Community Safety and Correctional Services Jim Bradley. Even though Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet have been scolded by another public watchdog for its secrecy and irresponsible resurrection of an obsolete war measures law, the Premier still refuses to give families the answers and apology they deserve.

Given Dalton McGuinty’s long track record of secrecy – from the passage of this secret law, to eHealth, to the secret Samsung deal, to the secret payout to former Deputy Health Minister – Dunlop called on Dalton McGuinty today to finally come clean, explain his role in passing the secret G20 law, and show respect to the Ontario families to whom he is accountable.

[cybercoma]

Why should ANYONE in ANY government apologize for making laws that arrest hoodlums who destroy private and public propertyY ... sometimes it's necessary to break the odd 2X4 across the back of a few blockheads to do so.

Do you think property crimes should be punished more severely than assaults?

[RNG]

Do you think property crimes should be punished more severely than assaults?

As is constantly being demonstrated by our courts, it is very dependent on the circumstances. And that's one of the reasons I tend to lean against minimum sentences. There is no answer in less than probably 100 pages to your question, and even then, the conclusion would be a far more eloquent variation of "it depends....."

[cybercoma]

That's what this world has come to. Where we can't distinguish between the value of human beings and material goods. Pathetic.

[RNG]

That's what this world has come to. Where we can't distinguish between the value of human beings and material goods. Pathetic.

Intent is far more significant, IMO. the G-20 thugs just wanted to break and burn things. That's what they went there for. That deserves serious sanctions. An assault, if provoked could be way less serious, again depending on the exact circumstances.

[g_bambino]

Yes.

The article does nothing to affirm the government disseminated erroneous information, either to the police or the public, before the summit. The impression I'm getting is that the police made mistakes based on a misinterpretation of what they were told by the Ontario cabinet. Hard to say for sure, though, without seeing the exact regulations issued by the Governor-in-Council under the Public Works Protection Act.

[GostHacked]

The article does nothing to affirm the government disseminated erroneous information, either to the police or the public, before the summit. The impression I'm getting is that the police made mistakes based on a misinterpretation of what they were told by the Ontario cabinet. Hard to say for sure, though, without seeing the exact regulations issued by the Governor-in-Council under the Public Works Protection Act.

But the Ontario cabinet never gave any special powers. Don't you get it yet? No no.. of course not.

You'll get it eventually.

[g_bambino]

But the Ontario cabinet never gave any special powers.

And apparently never said it did. So, your anger towards it is, so far, entirely unwarranted.

[GostHacked]

And apparently never said it did. So, your anger towards it is, so far, entirely unwarranted.

How is it unwarranted? Come on break it down for me. Tell me where I am wrong here. Consider it a challenge.

[g_bambino]

Tell me where I am wrong here.

You aren't necessarily wrong; you just haven't proven yourself to be right. There's no evidence of what you claim; namely that the government of Ontario stated, at any time and to anyone, that the area immediately beyond the G20 summit secure area perimeter fence had been designated as a public work according to the Public Works Protection Act, thereby granting police the ability to use in that area the powers accorded to them by said Act of Parliament.

[RNG]

Intent is far more significant, IMO. the G-20 thugs just wanted to break and burn things. That's what they went there for. That deserves serious sanctions. An assault, if provoked could be way less serious, again depending on the exact circumstances.

Bump! You peaceniks seem to avoid my post.