Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I wanted to start this thread to have (hopefully) a more sober discussions about what's happening with Trudeau's latest steps and not have it devolve into nonsense. 

I came across this article today and I think it makes a fair point. Whether you're for or against the Trucker's Protest, I think the Emergencies Act raises a few eyebrows.  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-invoking-the-emergencies-act-the-feds-go-from-no-action-to-the/  

"The federal government’s decision to go from virtually no action to the nuclear option to tackle the convoys that have paralyzed downtown Ottawa and seized control of select border crossings to the United States should come with an explanation. That is not an opinion. The Emergencies Act states that “a declaration of a public order emergency shall specify concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency,” though no written explanation was produced Monday, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was invoking the act for the first time since its creation in 1988, even though provisions under the act came into force immediately."

The article goes on to explain how law enforcement did next to nothing about the protestors for weeks and enforced not even basic/obvious bylaw violations, but then all of the sudden the government elects to go for the most extreme tools at its disposal without properly explaining the reasoning behind it.  

Up until recently the complaints about freedom and liberty were, as far as I'm concerned, just a lot of silliness.  With the Emergency Act invoked, Trudeau offers at least some credibility to those complaints and sets a bad precedent.  Do I think Trudeau's seizing power and that this is the death of democracy in Canada?  Not for a second.  I do, however, think he's handling things extremely poorly and we need an explanation forwhy this particular protest couldn't be handled in the same way as others like the G20.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted

I'm not sure of the logistical situation for Ottawa or Windsor police.  If they didn't have the resources to to enforce the law, they should have been provided with them by the provincial or federal governments.  If they did have them (which it doesn't sound like) then I think we can blame poor policing.  

What I'd really like is a proper explanation on why THIS protest is worth of the Emergencies Act when we didn't need it for that one:

 

SHBWZJJW2RFKVAGVYBRADNHPWY.webp

  • Like 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted (edited)

Rhetorical question, obviously, but I think we need a better explanation than that, don't we? 

If we can organize a proper police response for outright rioting, surely we can do the same and clear out the truckers and their supporters, no?  
 

Edited by Moonbox

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I wanted to start this thread to have (hopefully) a more sober discussions about what's happening with Trudeau's latest steps and not have it devolve into nonsense. 

I came across this article today and I think it makes a fair point. Whether you're for or against the Trucker's Protest, I think the Emergencies Act raises a few eyebrows.  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-invoking-the-emergencies-act-the-feds-go-from-no-action-to-the/  

"The federal government’s decision to go from virtually no action to the nuclear option to tackle the convoys that have paralyzed downtown Ottawa and seized control of select border crossings to the United States should come with an explanation. That is not an opinion. The Emergencies Act states that “a declaration of a public order emergency shall specify concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency,” though no written explanation was produced Monday, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was invoking the act for the first time since its creation in 1988, even though provisions under the act came into force immediately."

The article goes on to explain how law enforcement did next to nothing about the protestors for weeks and enforced not even basic/obvious bylaw violations, but then all of the sudden the government elects to go for the most extreme tools at its disposal without properly explaining the reasoning behind it.  

Up until recently the complaints about freedom and liberty were, as far as I'm concerned, just a lot of silliness.  With the Emergency Act invoked, Trudeau offers at least some credibility to those complaints and sets a bad precedent.  Do I think Trudeau's seizing power and that this is the death of democracy in Canada?  Not for a second.  I do, however, think he's handling things extremely poorly and we need an explanation forwhy this particular protest couldn't be handled in the same way as others like the G20.  

Stealing gasoline and calling people nazis wasn't your first clue?

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think he would have had to invoke the powers of the act if the policing had been handled better from the start?  

In recent years in NA there has been a precedent set for allowing extremely damaging protests to ravage cities for days, weeks, and months on end.

If Trudeau squashed the Freedom Convoy after just 1 week when they were just dancing around, waving flags and honking horns, it would have been a PR catastrophe.

He did his best to goad them to anger by name-calling and gaslighting them, but when they escalated it was just another peaceful protest, this time blocking key infrastructure, which again followed a precedent set earlier when FN people blocked trains for far too long.

I think that blocking the Ambassador Bridge garnered enough attention and made its point, and they should revert back to just surrounding Parliament. 

 

Trudeau could have averted this mess if he just seriously addressed the truckers' legitimate grievances. The vaxes aren't doing jack shit right now. The mandates and passports are fucking ridiculous. Especially against people with acquired immunity and healthy people under 30. 

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Up until recently the complaints about freedom and liberty were, as far as I'm concerned, just a lot of silliness.  With the Emergency Act invoked, Trudeau offers at least some credibility to those complaints and sets a bad precedent.  Do I think Trudeau's seizing power and that this is the death of democracy in Canada?  Not for a second.  I do, however, think he's handling things extremely poorly and we need an explanation forwhy this particular protest couldn't be handled in the same way as others like the G20.  

Maybe he's just trolling the Conservatives.  Someone in Cabinet or the PMO had a brainfart of silliness along similar lines as the fweedumites except they reasoned the risk to their credibility is worth the payoff if some yahoo goes...YAHOO if you get my drift, and Conservatives are maneuvered into a position of being who wears it.  I heard an opinion the other night I agreed with that the reason Trudeau is able to do what he wants, so far as doing what isn't actually insane, is not because he's so strong but because the opposition is so weak.

They're fishing because they can.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What I'd really like is a proper explanation on why THIS protest is worth of the Emergencies Act when we didn't need it for that one:

No attachment. What protest is THAT one?

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Rhetorical question, obviously, but I think we need a better explanation than that, don't we? 

If we can organize a proper police response for outright rioting, surely we can do the same and clear out the truckers and their supporters, no?  
 

Sure we can as evidenced by police calmly walking towards protesters the other day and simply causing protesters to back up.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Emergency powers by the gov means they feel they need the power to violate our rights and the law in order to maintain law and order.  Why is enforcing the law not enough for them to handle these truckers?  What will these extra powers of right-violation do, why are they needed?

Invoking this is extraordinarily.  Why don't they just enforce the law.  If i parked in the middle of the street and wouldn't move that would be illegal, so I would be arrested.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted
1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Invoking this is extraordinarily.  Why don't they just enforce the law.  If i parked in the middle of the street and wouldn't move that would be illegal, so I would be arrested.

That's what I'm really confused about.  I almost wonder if they dawdled for so long on it and people got annoyed at how weak-kneed the response was, but now that they know public support for the protests is minimal, they can beat their drums and pretend they're being tough about it now.  

I don't want to sound like like one of the other goofs on this forum, but that sort of 'play' would be very Trudeau - waffle and prevaricate until he knows which way the wind is blowing, and then pretend he's a man of principle and action when he knows which direction everyone wants him to face.   

  • Like 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted

The explanation is easy: because he can. And no, there's nothing to limit or stop him. Then, why wouldn't he?

It's been as simple as that for ages, since the times of no memory. A government with no checks or controls will become authoritarian.

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted (edited)

In answer to what appears to be the query of this this thread though...

The ultimate objective of the nascent tyrant is, of course, totalitarian rule.

So they create a problem with authoritarian undemocratic edicts then when there's enough of a stink they offer a solution.

It's what they do.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Posted

Because he can. And there's nothing to stop him. It's in the moments like these that all the self-bestowed generously pumped great democratic praise and pride of the modern world is checked and realigned with the reality. And so: there's nothing. None. Empty. The democracy is naked. Only a thin fog, an illusion.

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know why he's so hesitant to answer such a simple question.

It's easy enough to find:

https://tineye.com/search/3534b56edf78b9508bd0a5a684f83da169959b5e?sort=score&order=desc&page=1

" the Toronto G20 summit in June, 2010"

SHBWZJJW2RFKVAGVYBRADNHPWY

Wait...I think I have the answer to this mystery of why an anti-convoy guy would be hesitant to tell us the origin of that pic.

His OP's point appears to be that he wanted an immediate fascist style violent response to the peaceful convoy protests.

So he shows us a pic of a burning police car in a riot but doesn't want to tell us where it's from. I think he's hoping for lazy think assumptions that this is from the Trucker convoy protests.

It's from the Toronto G 20 riots of 2010. As you'll recall those riots were the cause of massive human rights claims. Toronto police paid through the nose for them.  $16.5 million is what I heard.

When "The blood of the martyrs waters the meadows of France" there can be unfortunate repercussions. The OP appears to prefer you didn't notice.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Posted (edited)

So even if someone or something would challenge him (would it? a big question) by the time the wise courts would get to look at it it would be long gone. Oops sorry. Empty and worthless apology. Try again next time: sure and why not?

What a disgusting and sad parody on a working democracy. Std theater with as pompous as useless in the time of need actors not worth a minute of intelligent attention. We needed this pandemic if only for this, to know.

 

Edited by myata

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Posted (edited)

So 16000 truckers decided they we're going to get fired without a fight, and Justin Trudeau does nothing to try and de-escualte the situtation. It's obvious that Justin Trudeau is mentally ill. If he continues with this nonsense, I could see western Canada seperating very fast.

Edited by TrudeauSucks
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not sure of the logistical situation for Ottawa or Windsor police.  If they didn't have the resources to to enforce the law, they should have been provided with them by the provincial or federal governments.  If they did have them (which it doesn't sound like) then I think we can blame poor policing.  

What I'd really like is a proper explanation on why THIS protest is worth of the Emergencies Act when we didn't need it for that one:

 

SHBWZJJW2RFKVAGVYBRADNHPWY.webp

There are a number of reasons why the act is necessary.  But there is no need to for the government to give a detailed explanation, although they did issue a brief explanation.   The reasons have been on the media constantly since the protest convoy started three weeks ago.  It will also be debated thoroughly in Parliament as is required within seven days of enactment.

Edited by blackbird
Posted (edited)

The imposition of the act has been an obvious necessity for the past 2-1/2 weeks as the occupation of a city became an uncontrollable disaster.

  The declared attempt to overthrow our democratic system and occupation of the capital city should be an obvious reason to anyone paying attention.

This has been well-publicized in the media during this whole time.  Nobody can say they don't understand it if they have been watching the news.

Secondly, this will be debated thoroughly in Parliament as the government is required to bring it into Parliament for approval within seven days.  So this will give ample opportunity for everyone to understand the implementation of this act.

Edited by blackbird
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

In answer to what appears to be the query of this this thread though...

The ultimate objective of the nascent tyrant is, of course, totalitarian rule.

So they create a problem with authoritarian undemocratic edicts then when there's enough of a stink they offer a solution.

It's what they do.

Nonsense.  Ever heard we have a Parliamentary system with an elected minority government?

Edited by blackbird
Posted

Government doesn't need to explain why it needs extraordinary powers and can give them to itself on a whim. What else do you need to know about this great democracy?

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,833
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    maria orsic
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • VanidaCKP earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • maria orsic earned a badge
      First Post
    • Majikman earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • oops earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Politics1990 went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...