Jump to content

Emergency Act Challenged - Over a year after government invoked Emergencies Act, court to hear legal challenge


Recommended Posts

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-419327-4-.htm#419327

This will be interesting. It's one thing for the commissioner to find they were within the law - but if a court does that ENDS any complaints the next time it's used which could be against first nations blockades or blm marches, etc. Will a judge be willing to say Justin got it wrong? Or will they leave the door open to abuses in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Will a judge be willing to say Justin got it wrong?

I'm betting on a finding that's common in collision cases in maritime law, where it's rare to see blame being assigned 100% to one vessel or Master.

Quote

Or will they leave the door open to abuses in the future?

Given how many Canadians are half convinced we're already dictated to by Nazis and commies hasn't this ship sailed a long long time ago?  You didn't see Trudeau's tanks crushing the trucker's convoy last year? I'm pretty sure Goddess or some such around here did before the MSM/PMO's censors stopped us from seeing it. Maybe it'll be mentioned during the legal challenge.

Seriously though it's great that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is involved, hopefully they'll bring a big enough degree of seriousness to the challenge that blunt's anything really retarded from being cited by the applicants, like MSM brainwashing mind control conspiracies for example.

I do think it would be useful to call WasteCanMan as an expert.  He's the 7th smartest guy on the Internet and likely our country's (if not our planet's) foremost expert on the crimes and abuses committed by the government/MSM/Big Pharma.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm betting on a finding that's common in collision cases in maritime law, where it's rare to see blame being assigned 100% to one vessel or Master.

Well you may be right, but thats going to be a very tight needle to thread here. The civil liberties groups will be pushing for a 'yes no' kind of thing.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Given how many Canadians are half convinced we're already dictated to by Nazis and commies hasn't this ship sailed a long long time ago?  You didn't see Trudeau's tanks crushing the trucker's convoy last year?

I saw the horses crush an old lady - does that count? :)    (also we don't have any tanks, and what parts we have are now going to ukraine).

But i'm more interested in the economic part of it.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Seriously though it's great that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is involved, hopefully they'll bring a big enough degree of seriousness to the challenge that blunt's anything really retarded from being cited by the applicants, like MSM brainwashing mind control conspiracies for example.

The civil liberties association IS the applicant aren't they?

I get the feeling you don't take this seriously. But - if for example blm had a protest and the act was declared by PP and their assets seized - i wonder if you'd be so sanguine, Or if that happened to a first nations community and all the communities bank assets were seized due to 'supporting illegal activity'? You KNOW the next abuse will go a little further than this one, that's how it works

If this becomes 'ok' - you may look back and realize what a mistake that was before too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You KNOW the next abuse will go a little further than this one, that's how it works

If this becomes 'ok' - you may look back and realize what a mistake that was before too long.

I don't know that at all.  I think it's just an appeal to fear based on what-ifs and your assumptions about my biases. Anyone can play that game.

I doubt for example if you'd get all pious about an abuse of power if the federal government declared martial law to round up all the homeless people and haul their tents and belongings to the nearest landfill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I don't know that at all. 

Oh -sorry forgive me, i assumed you had some basic knowledge of such things. That's my bad.

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I think it's just an appeal to fear based on what-ifs and your assumptions about my biases

No, that's history. It's always how it works. But - there's always a group like you who manage to convince themselves that one abuse of power couldn't POSSIBLY lead to another.  Sigh.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I doubt for example if you'd get all pious about an abuse of power if the federal government declared martial law to round up all the homeless people and haul their tents and belongings to the nearest landfill.

I would be upset about that. But - i guess it's the world that Canadians want to live in. You obviously are ok with it, a lot of people are, so ... guess that's what we're going to do and you git what you git and don't throw a fit, amiright?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well you may be right, .....

I saw the horses crush an old lady - does that count? :)    (also we don't have any tanks, and what parts we have are now going to ukraine).

......

"A national civil liberties group is set to argue that "nebulous or strained claims" about economic instability or general unrest weren't enough to legally justify the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act early last year."

What are they going to argue? What are they expecting? Both claims were addressed in the Report.

 

Lets not bring up that non event again.

Yes, a woman was pushed by a horse and fell down. Standing in front of a bunch of horse is inherently a dangerous thing. There was lots of yelling and screaming and crying and shouting police brutality but in the end, after she was released form hospital with no injuries, it all went away. No charges, no court, just lots of noise.

Edited by ExFlyer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"A national civil liberties group is set to argue that "nebulous or strained claims" about economic instability or general unrest weren't enough to legally justify the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act early last year."

What are they going to argue? What are they expecting? Both claims were addressed in the Report.

A report that started off by saying that a reasonable man might very well come to a completely opposite opinion.

And the report won't have legal weight. It's basically his personal opinion, not a legal opinion.

So this will be examining whether or not it met the requirements of law.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Lets not bring up that non event again.

I don't think you realize the import of the precedent here. The civil liberties groups do - those are not exactly right wing groups you know ;)  But the know damn well this absolutely will have a huge impact on people's rights in the future.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, a woman was pushed by a horse and fell down. Standing in front of a bunch of horse is inherently a dangerous thing. There was lots of yelling and screaming and crying and shouting police brutality but in the end, after she was released form hospital with no injuries, it all went away. No charges, no court, just lots of noise.

The police don't get charged when they kill people at protests (yes, it's happened).  That doesn't make it right.

But - demonstrators and police are one thing. They kind of go hand in hand. But the freezing of bank accounts and the other actions they were looking at....  that's next level.  It's one thing to charge every protester with a crime, you really can't do that. But imagine if you froze all their assets. And the assets of anyone who donated to their cause.

I mean - simple enough right? Hey - we're looking at holding the protesters financially responsible for damages - all bank accounts frozen and garnishee their wages until the final bill comes in - should just take a year or so.

You would shut down people's ability to protest other than small groups at street corners. And the civil liberties people know it.

 

You need to stop thinking 'what if the liberals have this power".  I know you trust them. You need to start thinking "what if someone like donald trump did".  Because sooner or later that will happen in Canada and that's who WILL have that power.

Think carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A report that started off by saying that a reasonable man might very well come to a completely opposite opinion.

And the report won't have legal weight. It's basically his personal opinion, not a legal opinion.

So this will be examining whether or not it met the requirements of law.

I don't think you realize the import of the precedent here. The civil liberties groups do - those are not exactly right wing groups you know ;)  But the know damn well this absolutely will have a huge impact on people's rights in the future.

The police don't get charged when they kill people at protests (yes, it's happened).  That doesn't make it right.

But - demonstrators and police are one thing. They kind of go hand in hand. But the freezing of bank accounts and the other actions they were looking at....  that's next level.  It's one thing to charge every protester with a crime, you really can't do that. But imagine if you froze all their assets. And the assets of anyone who donated to their cause.

I mean - simple enough right? Hey - we're looking at holding the protesters financially responsible for damages - all bank accounts frozen and garnishee their wages until the final bill comes in - should just take a year or so.

You would shut down people's ability to protest other than small groups at street corners. And the civil liberties people know it.

 

You need to stop thinking 'what if the liberals have this power".  I know you trust them. You need to start thinking "what if someone like donald trump did".  Because sooner or later that will happen in Canada and that's who WILL have that power.

Think carefully.

One report will hold as much weight as the other. No legal recourse so, just opinion.

Again, if the woman that fell had a case, it would have been adjudicated, especially with all the 'rights" groups making issue of the event. No one pushed or made a charge including the woman. She is not a martyr.

I do not and never will compare us with donald trump or any other country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Will a judge be willing to say Justin got it wrong?

Why wouldn’t they?  It happens in courts everyday where a judge rules against the government. 
 

I do like the CCLA’s website where they lay everything out, including timelines, documents and evidence.   Whoever is doing their website is doing a very good job.  it’s a great resource to understand why the CCLA does what it does.  

https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/emergencies-act/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh -sorry forgive me, i assumed you had some basic knowledge of such things. That's my bad.

Yes is, you just carry on blithely assuming instead of knowing. It seems you can't help yourself.  Must be those jerky knees of your's.

Quote

No, that's history. It's always how it works. But - there's always a group like you who manage to convince themselves that one abuse of power couldn't POSSIBLY lead to another.  Sigh.

There are also groups that challenge the abuse of power, who are unwilling to throw their hands up in despair.  You're the one who's convinced here not me.

Quote

I would be upset about that. But - i guess it's the world that Canadians want to live in. You obviously are ok with it, a lot of people are, so ... guess that's what we're going to do and you git what you git and don't throw a fit, amiright?

You guess or assume?  You also assume Canadians are okay with being told lies so I seriously doubt your ability to think straight about things.  I'm assuming you can rise above yourself when you want to but I guess you're not in the mood.  

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

One report will hold as much weight as the other. No legal recourse so, just opinion.

Sure - but this is a legal judgement in front of a judge in a court. It actually does hold legal weight

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Again, if the woman that fell had a case, it would have been adjudicated, especially with all the 'rights" groups making issue of the event. No one pushed or made a charge including the woman. She is not a martyr.s

We are literally talking about the pushback now. this whole legal exercise is pushback to those events.

And trudeau got called out on it on the world stage specifically. So not like there was NO repercussions.

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not and never will compare us with donald trump or any other country.

Is that what i said? Are you being entirely honest with that comment?  Go read what i said again and see if i was comparing us to another country. If you need i can explain it again another way to make it more understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - but this is a legal judgement in front of a judge in a court. It actually does hold legal weight

We are literally talking about the pushback now. this whole legal exercise is pushback to those events.

And trudeau got called out on it on the world stage specifically. So not like there was NO repercussions.

Is that what i said? Are you being entirely honest with that comment?  Go read what i said again and see if i was comparing us to another country. If you need i can explain it again another way to make it more understandable.

Legal judgment depends entirely what the question is and not having seen any of the documents, I have no idea what they are asking or claiming.

Trudeau may have been criticized but so have almost all other world leaders for one thing or another.

You brought up donald trump? You asked "You need to start thinking "what if someone like donald trump did". I said I don't compare.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Legal judgment depends entirely what the question is and not having seen any of the documents, I have no idea what they are asking or claiming.

No - dude this is a legal challenge inside a legal court with a legal judge presiding over the court case. This is going to be a legal judgement period,

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Trudeau may have been criticized but so have almost all other world leaders for one thing or another.

So - anything he does is ok because leaders have all been criticized one time or another? How does that make sense?

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You brought up donald trump? You asked "You need to start thinking "what if someone like donald trump did".

Yes - someone LIKE him. Not him,

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

I said I don't compare.

Who asked you to? Nobody said you should compare anyone to anyone else. I said imagine that someone LIKE donald trump had those powers.  Imagine how they might be misused.

No comparison required. Sounds like you're just dodging the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No - dude this is a legal challenge inside a legal court with a legal judge presiding over the court case. This is going to be a legal judgement period,

So - anything he does is ok because leaders have all been criticized one time or another? How does that make sense?

Yes - someone LIKE him. Not him,

Who asked you to? Nobody said you should compare anyone to anyone else. I said imagine that someone LIKE donald trump had those powers.  Imagine how they might be misused.

No comparison required. Sounds like you're just dodging the issue.

Easy , easy.

I said any judgment will depend on the questions, charges and claims and whatever the judge deems relevant and appropriate. Not knowing the specific claims or accusations makes everything conjecture..

Didn't say that at all. Just stating he is not alone being criticized.

When you drop names in a conversation, you compare or, why bother dropping names?

I am not dodging anything, just discussing. You seem very defensive?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

When you drop names in a conversation, you compare or, why bother dropping names?

To express the kind of person you're talking about whithout having to write a long dialoge.  If i say "the mariners need a player tha hits like babe ruth", i'm not asking you to compare and contrast anything.  I'm saying - babe ruth has certain characteristics and they need someone who also has those characteristics.

So when i say that it can be abused by someone like donald trump - there's nobody to compare to.  I'm saying trump has a set of characteristics and imagine this law in the hands of someone who ALSO has these characteristics.

Seriously - there was only one person in that discussion, so who were you going to 'compare' it to.

It really does feel like you're dodging. My comment was pretty obviously not a 'compare' comment, it was a simple statement that you could imagine the possible abuses someone LIKE donald trump could do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

To express the kind of person you're talking about whithout having to write a long dialoge.  If i say "the mariners need a player tha hits like babe ruth", i'm not asking you to compare and contrast anything.  I'm saying - babe ruth has certain characteristics and they need someone who also has those characteristics.

So when i say that it can be abused by someone like donald trump - there's nobody to compare to.  I'm saying trump has a set of characteristics and imagine this law in the hands of someone who ALSO has these characteristics.

Seriously - there was only one person in that discussion, so who were you going to 'compare' it to.

It really does feel like you're dodging. My comment was pretty obviously not a 'compare' comment, it was a simple statement that you could imagine the possible abuses someone LIKE donald trump could do.

 

Yeah OK. Do you hear yourself? Invoking Babe Ruth (or donald trump), meaning you want someone like him.

My comments are what I mean.  No dodging.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Addressed what??

What specifically do you want me to address??

 

the issue of what would happen if someone similar to trump got into power and it had been legally established that calling the emergency act during a protest was an acceptable thing to do.  You know -that thing you dodged by saying you don't want to "compare" things :).

That was the whole point. The judge will have to decide if he wants to normalize this kind of thing and enshrine it in law that it's acceptable, and the advocacy groups are petrified of that. So i asked you to consider what might happen if someone with the morals and manners of trump got ahold of the right to freeze  or seize assets, suspend liberties and rights, and take similar actions against people simply for protesting. 

THat's why this is still an important issue after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, suds said:

Let's say the courts decide the government was not within the law by invoking the emergencies act. That would also open them up to lawsuits by the protesters would it not?

Yes and no. Remember - the act was not used to deal with the protesters directly. Everything that happened there did not require the act. which is one of the reasons people are pissed about it being invoked. So the protesters wouldn't be able to claim any 'damages'.

And for the people who got their accounts seized, the banks released most of that even before the gov't cancelled the emergency realizing the gov't was overstepping - SOME people may be able to claim damages against the gov't but by and large they didn't lose any money.  So in this case there wouldn't be much to sue for .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

the issue of what would happen if someone similar to trump got into power and it had been legally established that calling the emergency act during a protest was an acceptable thing to do.  You know -that thing you dodged by saying you don't want to "compare" things :).

That was the whole point. The judge will have to decide if he wants to normalize this kind of thing and enshrine it in law that it's acceptable, and the advocacy groups are petrified of that. So i asked you to consider what might happen if someone with the morals and manners of trump got ahold of the right to freeze  or seize assets, suspend liberties and rights, and take similar actions against people simply for protesting. 

THat's why this is still an important issue after all.

Firstly, I don't play the what if game.

But since you asked, if something was "legally established that calling the emergency act during a protest was an acceptable thing to dothen so be it.

The judge will decide if the whatever is questioned or challenged by them has merit.

I have no idea what trump or his ilk would do.

It is before the courts, I will wait and see the judgment. I do not make assumptions, guesses or play what ifs.

You certainly seem to care a lot about what I think :)

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, suds said:

Let's say the courts decide the government was not within the law by invoking the emergencies act. That would also open them up to lawsuits by the protesters would it not?

Not necessarily.  The court could deem the invoking of the Act illegal while upholding the actions to break up the invasion.  But, maybe the people who had their accounts frozen might have a case…. They might get their grift money returned from the crowd funding sources too.  

It will depend entirely on the ruling, which isn’t likely to rule against the government in this anyway.  So the grifters and invaders shouldn’t get their hopes up too high.   

Edited by TreeBeard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Firstly, I don't play the what if game.

Firstly - you're dodging the issue and it's getting pretty blatantly obvious.

Everybody who's sane plays the 'what if' game. Ever bought insurance? You played the what if game.

So that's just a cop out. A sane person always looks at how their actions today will affect the future.

So what you seem to be saying is you know that if others are allowed to do what justin did it would be bad. What he did was wrong and will set a terrible precedent if it's enshrined in law.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

But since you asked, if something was "legally established that calling the emergency act during a protest was an acceptable thing to dothen so be it.

How very authoritarian of you :)  Well those that believe in the right to protest certainly disagree, and they'll be putting up a fight to prevent that. There's a lot of people and countries that feel the right to protest is important

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

I have no idea what trump or his ilk would do.

Really :)   LOL - well ok then.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It is before the courts, I will wait and see the judgment. I do not make assumptions, guesses or play what ifs.

ROFLMAO!!!! So you think he's guilty too :)

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You certainly seem to care a lot about what I think :)

This is a discussion board. We were discussing. You sure are afraid to discuss things considering that presumably you come to a discussion board to discuss things :)

Look - no sarcasm or barbs intended, but i get that justin is kind of your guy and you' don't like to see the liberals in a bad light and sure, we can all be a little 'home team' from time to time, But this is actually kind of important. This issue has long term very serious ramifications and cna't just be dismissed lightly as a gaffe or the like. IF this is enshrined in law it will mean serious confrontations and issues down the road and will be a very real erosion of people's rights.

This is one of those things were we should be Canadians first and liberals or conservatives second.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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