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

[CdnFox]

Federal lawyers set to explain legal rationale for government use of Emergencies Act

 

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/419744/Federal-lawyers-set-to-explain-legal-rationale-for-government-use-of-Emergencies-Act

 

The lawyers plan to spell out reasons the Federal Court should dismiss arguments from several groups and individuals who reject the Liberal government's invocation of the emergency law.

Civil liberties and constitutional defence groups have told Justice Richard Mosley this week the government did not meet the legal threshold for resorting to the Emergencies Act.

The act allowed for temporary measures including prohibition of public assemblies, the designation of secure places, direction to banks to freeze assets and a ban on support for participants.

[ExFlyer]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

Everybody who's sane plays the 'what if' game. ....

....

So what y.....

.....

Really    LOL - well ok then.

.....

This is a discussion board. We were discussing. .....

Look - no sarcasm or barbs intended, but i get that justin is kind of your guy and ......

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

 

Look, it was interesting discussing things with you but you seem to have gone off the deep end.

I answered your question. You don't like it? OK. that is your right.

I told you who I voted for and it was not liberal.

It was good to discuss with you but when you become belligerent and defensive, the fun is gone.

Bye now.

[suds]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

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 counts 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.   

So basically any judicial review on the use of the emergencies act becomes a two part affair. 1) was the implementation of the act justifiable in terms of the wording of the act?  2) were all the powers used that limited charter rights justifiable in a free and democratic society? I would place far more importance on 2.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, it was interesting discussing things with you but you seem to have gone off the deep end.

Asking you what would happen if a bad person had the ability to use the emergency act is 'going off the deep end'?

Holy crap dude - i haven't seen this much bobbing and weaving to avoid something in my life!  It's a simple question, there's no 'deep end' here.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I answered your question. You don't like it? OK. that is your right.

ROFL - you did NOT answer the question, you claimed that you don't think about the future and refused to answer!  Which is fine if that's what you'd like to do but lets not pretend it's not dodging the question

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I told you who I voted for and it was not liberal.

It was good to discuss with you but when you become belligerent and defensive, the fun is gone.

Bye now.

Sure - feel free to stick your head back in the sand   There was nothing belligerent or defensive about the question, other than you obviously feel it casts the libs in a bad light and you are defensive about that. Yeash. 

[myata]

An epitome of Canada: if justice cannot stop an abuse of power, in time while it's in progress - what purpose does it serve and what is the point of it?

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Asking you what would happen if a bad person had the ability to use the emergency act is 'going off the deep end'?

You'd have to believe that bad person was in a position where absolutely no one could intervene to prevent anything they might do.

Let's rephrase the question. What if Trudeau within the capacity of his emergency powers had in fact ordered tanks to literally crush the truckers convoy/protest? Do you honestly believe there would have been no way in Heaven or on Earth to have prevented that? I'm assuming ordering in the tanks would qualify as 'going off the deep end'.

Despite the assumed omnipotence of Mr Socks I highly doubt it. Surely someone close to him has a bag of lollipops or gummy bears on hand in the event of any really serious meltdown.

Edited April 5, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You'd have to believe that bad person was in a position where absolutely no one could intervene to prevent anything they might do.

Let's rephrase the question. What if Trudeau within the capacity of his emergency powers had in fact ordered tanks to literally crush the truckers convoy/protest? Do you honestly believe there would have been no way in Heaven or on Earth to have prevented that?

Despite the assumed omnipotence of Mr Socks I highly doubt it. Surely someone close to him has a bag of lollipops or gummy bears on hand in the event of any really serious meltdown.

He literally did go after people's bank accounts tho. I'm not proposing something that didn't actually happen.

Not hard to take it a bare step forward and seize the assets of any group protesting, and just as was the case here seize the banking assets of anyone who supports them.

And why stop there - hold them and use them to pay the 'damages' why not? And where does it go from there? i can think of dozens of things just like that which would ruin people - just for supporting never mind participating in a protest. That door is already open.

"Rolling tanks" is so 1980's. These days you can supress people all you want by other means.

This is why so many countries spoke out against what he did. It's a half step away from some VERY serious abuses, and without legitimate reason.

As to being surrounded - That type ALWAYS surrounds themselves with loyalists.  Trudeau, trump, etc they're all the same. So it's a safe bet if someone like that gets in they will already be surrounded by yes men.

Any authortarian leader of any political stripe armed with a legal justification for this kind of behavior can abuse it outrageously.

It would be in Canada's best interest for the courts to find he did not have lawful excuse

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

This is why so many countries spoke out against what he did.

Which “countries” spoke out?  
 

I remember wind-bag right-wingers and talking heads in some countries speaking out, but I don’t recall, other than maybe Russia(?), speaking out as a government against what was happening in Canada.  

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

I remember wind-bag right-wingers and talking heads in some countries speaking out,

Ahhh. So this is going to be one of those times where you attempt to defend justin's actions  by claiming that if politicans from a country speak out, even if they're part of the current gov't, they're not REALLY actually THE gov't so the 'country' didn't speak out.

Please. That's as weak as 'true communism has never been tried'.

Not ONLY did gov't members speak out from croatia, germany, austrailia, and a bunch of others but the media also spoke out and they're part of the voice of teh country as well. Papers noted that people were horrified to see that kind of thing happening in Canada of all places. France, England, etc all talked about it for weeks and it was all negative, nobody supported it.

Sorry -you can't win this one with some sort of lawyers technicality bullcrap. His totalitarian actions were condemned around the world.

So much for 'canada is back'.

[TreeBeard]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

by claiming that if politicans from a country speak out, even if they're part of the current gov't, they're not REALLY actually THE gov't so the 'country' didn't speak out.

True.  If they’re not part of an actual ruling government, then how would they have the authority to speak FOR a country?

 

Does Elizabeth May speak for Canada when she says stuff?   Heck no, she doesn’t.  That’s nonsensical.  

Edited April 5, 2023 by TreeBeard

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And where does it go from there? i can think of dozens of things just like that which would ruin people - just for supporting never mind participating in a protest. That door is already open.

 

Quote

"Rolling tanks" is so 1980's. These days you can supress people all you want by other means.

Well you should list these means so we can go through them, the sort of other real means associated with real totalitarians.

I mean, we've been subjected for years now to associations with, Stalin, Hitler... the very worst that history has to offer.

Mr Socks? ?   

Edited April 5, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Well you should list these means so we can go through them, the sort of other real means associated with real totalitarians.

I literally did list some.

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I mean, we've been subjected for years now to associations with, Stalin, Hitler... the very worst that history has to offer.

"we"?  You mean liberals?

Well gee - do you think maybe there's a REASON for that?

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Mr Socks. ?   

well.. in fairness i probably shouldn't assume his gender like that.....  

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I literally did list some.

A few frozen bank accounts? That's a pretty lame assed totalitarianship.

Quote

"we"?  You mean liberals?

No it's a broader spectrum than that really. Unconservatives is a better catch-all term.

Quote

 

Well gee - do you think maybe there's a REASON for that?

 

Yes, most conservatives don't/can't/won't think straight.

Quote

well.. in fairness i probably shouldn't assume his gender like that.....  

Why not, you assume anything else that comes to your knee.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

True.  If they’re not part of an actual ruling government, then how would they have the authority to speak FOR a country?

 

Does Elizabeth May speak for Canada when she says stuff?   Heck no, she doesn’t.  That’s nonsensical.  

Sure she does. In fact that's come up before.  If a member of parliament makes a statement about another country that is given weight.

Let me guess - if i say that a leader of a country said something, your next attempt to defend the libs will be "Well, TECHNICALLY that leader didn't get 100 percent of the vote so they don't speak for the WHOLE country"...

"well TECHNICALLY it's not the country"...  Please. Their politicains slag us, their media slags us, polls slag us, it's the country.

"BUUUUUUUTTT NOT TEEECHNICALLY"  Yeash. Tell me you know i'm right without telling me.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A few frozen bank accounts? That's a pretty lame assed totalitarianship.

Actually i pointed out more. Thanks for paying attention tho, you've been great  ?

 

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No it's a broader spectrum than that really. Unconservatives is a better catch-all term.

Well... it's a little concerning that you've given the voices in your head a name, but.. sure.

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes, most conservatives don't/can't/won't think straight.

Sure kiddo. that's the problem.

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why not, you assume anything else that comes to your knee.

????? - sssuuuuuurrreee....

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure she does. In fact that's come up before.  If a member of parliament makes a statement about another country that is given weight.

 

No, she doesn’t speak for Canada.   You’re either obtuse or dishonest. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

No, she doesn’t speak for Canada.   You’re either obtuse or dishonest. 

Sure she does. She's a gov't representative. She can't enter agreements but yeah, when she talks she's representing canadians. That's what it means to be an mp and leader of a party in the house of  commons.

Did you not know this was a democracy?

She might not represent ALL of canada but as we noted neither does justin. In fact - justin got about the same number of votes as she did.

Sorry - if you didn't know that an mp is speaking on behalf of the people when they speak then i'm afraid your education is severely lacking.

Swing and a miss kiddo.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Actually i pointed out more. Thanks for paying attention tho, you've been great  ?

In terms of suppressing dissent? ?

I said comparable to Stalin or Hitler or would you like to dial it back somewhat?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In terms of suppressing dissent? ?

yes.

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I said comparable to Stalin or Hitler or would you like to dial it back somewhat?

You're asking if i'd like to dial back what YOU said?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure she does. In fact that's come up before.  If a member of parliament makes a statement about another country that is given weight.

Let me guess - if i say that a leader of a country said something, your next attempt to defend the libs will be "Well, TECHNICALLY that leader didn't get 100 percent of the vote so they don't speak for the WHOLE country"...

"well TECHNICALLY it's not the country"...  Please. Their politicains slag us, their media slags us, polls slag us, it's the country.

"BUUUUUUUTTT NOT TEEECHNICALLY"  Yeash. Tell me you know i'm right without telling me.

 She is a MP and leader of a party with 2 seats in Parliament, not a member of the government, that is the PM and Cabinet.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

yes.

You're asking if i'd like to dial back what YOU said?

No, I asked if you'd like to dial back your totalitarian rhetoric - in the context of suppressing dissent.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 She is a MP and leader of a party with 2 seats in Parliament, not a member of the government, that is the PM and Cabinet.

The Parliament is literally the voice of the people. Parl -iament. A speaking.

The gov't is the gov't and is charged with the administration of the people but the entire  parliament is the voice of the people. That's even what the word means - here's from the dictionary:

A representative body having supreme legislative powers within a state or multinational organization.

So - while Lizzie cannot speak for the GOVERNMENT per se, she absolutely CAN and DOES speak for the people. She is not the only voice that speaks for the people, but then there's no ONE voice that speaks for the gov't either. Even the leader doesn't do that. Things still need to be voted on

So yes - Lizzie does represent the people of canada. When she speaks she speaks for Canadians. She's not the only voice that does, but she definitely is A voice that does.  What else did you think a representative democracy was?

[eyeball]

To be sure there is and always has been a very good indicator of totalitarian leanings in our governance which is the amount of secrecy baked into it.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I asked if you'd like to dial back your totalitarian rhetoric - in the context of suppressing dissent.

The totalitarian rhetoric was yours. I didn't mention hitler or the like. Nor did i say a future leader would be liberal or mention a political leaning.

I swear sometimes you're like a magic 8 ball - you just rattle your head and say whatever floats to the top.

If it becomes established that It's ok to enact the emergency act to suppress protests the gov't doesn't like, then a totalitarian, authoritarian, or just plain egomaniac gov't of the future can abuse it to essentially crush all protests in Canada by attacking people's assets even if they're only supportive. That has a wide range of applications

So that's bad. If you don't think that's bad - well then you're helping earn that repuation of being a little more like hitler that you talked about, aitcha

[Nefarious Banana]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it becomes established that It's ok to enact the Emergency Act to suppress protests the gov't doesn't like, then a totalitarian, authoritarian, or just plain egomaniac gov't of the future can abuse it to essentially crush all protests in Canada by attacking people's assets even if they're only supportive. That has a wide range of applications.

Your above quote is a concept that TreeBeard, eyeball, and others have no grasp of.  The Emergency Act was abused by an inept government and its weakling leader.  If not reined in, that weakling leader will use it again  . . . and who knows for what.