Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

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.

Sadly true. And worse, each time it's abused it makes it easier to take the abuse an inch further. They'll take this example and stretch it just a bit the next time, and then do the same the next time.

Fortunately SOME people on the left, in this case the civil liberties groups, have figured it out and we'll see if they can have some success in court. I hope so - this is not a good thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

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.

Sure. You almost can't have gov't without it. But - this bypasses some of the most important checks and balances that are in place to keep that from going too far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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?

She is not parliament, she is not the people, she is one member. Saying she represents Canada is like saying MGT, Boebert or AOC represents the US.

Government is the Cabinet. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She is not parliament, she is not the people, she is one member. Saying she represents Canada is like saying MGT, Boebert or AOC represents the US.

No one person is the parliament or the people. Are you saying NO one represents the people?

I don't think you get how this works. And people like AOC are indeed representatives of the people. A fact that's caused some trouble.

47 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Government is the Cabinet. 

Don't be silly. The gov't has nothing in the slightest to do with the cabinet. The cabinet doesn't even really exist as part of the governing structure - if Justin didn't want to have a cabinet he doesn't have to. thats' why they change size with each gov't.  It's simply an internal structural tradition that works well for organizational purposes.  The Cabinet isn't The Gov't. How many votes does "the cabinet" get? zero. The only people who get votes are the individual MP's regardless of whether they are cabinet or not.

The Parilament is the governing body, with one party forming the official government, one party forming the loyal opposition, and the rest forming the remainder of parliament.

Pretty much all matters of import need to be voted on. Any new laws, any spending, etc.  THAT - and not the cabinet - is how the people are represented.

Do you know how many votes justin trudeau has? 1 Do you know how many lizzie has? 1.  They are actually no different in the slightest when it comes to representing the people.

As leader of the party that currently forms gov't, Justin is the voice of the canaidan GOVERNMENT - but not the voice of canadians. No more than lizzie etc.

I know this seems counter intuitive. but it is in fact how it works.  Justin isn't even the head of state in canada. And the representative of the head of state could decide tomorrow that justin isn't prime minister any more.

Lizzie is in fact a representative of the people as part of the governing body.

While this might not be comfortable for you (god knows i need a shower after saying it) it is the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

AOC, MGT and Boebert do not represent the United States. May does not represent Canada. They do represent enough people to win their respective constituencies.

You're moving goalposts.

First off they absolutely do represent the us - she's literally called a representative. Sorry - that's the way it is.

Second off - you've switched from canada's people to "canada" or the "US".  Nice try.

AOC is as representative of the people of the US,  May is a representative of canadians. That is absolutely how it is. They speak in the house and they speak in public and they're not speaking JUST about things that affect their riding. They're elected to represent the people. The riding is the people who chose them to speak on behalf of the people but they still get to speak on behalf of the people. When they vote - they vote for all canadians. When they speak, they speak for all canadians.  Which is why they're SUPPOSED to watch what they say a bit. And not call canadians bigots or mysoginists or wastes of space just because they disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You're moving goalposts.

First off they absolutely do represent the us - she's literally called a representative. Sorry - that's the way it is.

Second off - you've switched from canada's people to "canada" or the "US".  Nice try.

AOC is as representative of the people of the US,  May is a representative of canadians. That is absolutely how it is. They speak in the house and they speak in public and they're not speaking JUST about things that affect their riding. They're elected to represent the people. The riding is the people who chose them to speak on behalf of the people but they still get to speak on behalf of the people. When they vote - they vote for all canadians. When they speak, they speak for all canadians.  Which is why they're SUPPOSED to watch what they say a bit. And not call canadians bigots or mysoginists or wastes of space just because they disagree.

The are elected to speak for their constituents, period.

An MP from St. John’s does not speak for the people of Whitehorse.

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

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The are elected to speak for their constituents, period.

Don't be silly. They frequently speak in the house on matters other than those which affect their constituents, and they vote on everything regardless of whether or not it affects their constituents. 

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

An MP from St. John’s does not speak for the people of Whitehorse.

Of course he does, and frequently. We see it all the time.  The guy from st johns can be a cabinet minister speaking for all of canada on finances - or be a shadow cabinet minister doing the same. Or may serve on committees to make decisions for all of canada.  Etc etc etc.  Did the guy in whitehorse elect Freeland? She's talking on his behalf - what's that about?

The house of commons is a chorus. Each region elects a voice to go and discuss the matters of the state on behalf of ALL canadians. Those people will vote, act on, decide etc issues for all Canadians. They will speak on behalf of canadians. Watch question period some time, MOST of the speakers are speaking for all canadians not just their constituents (tho that does come up once in a while due to familiarity).

THey ALSO speak for future voters who may not even be born yet, not just those who voted for them right now.

Sorry - you're wrong on this. The fact that a riding elects someone does NOT mean that person ONLY speaks for that riding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure she does. She's a gov't representative.

If E. May says something, it’s not speaking for the country.  You’re simply wrong.  She doesn’t have the authority as she’s not a sitting minister of any stripe.  

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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"...

No, you made up a strawman to argue against.  Obviously a leader of a country can speak for the country.  
 

Which leader of a country spoke out against the Emergencies Act?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If E. May says something, it’s not speaking for the country.  You’re simply wrong.  She doesn’t have the authority as she’s not a sitting minister of any stripe.  

She's not speaking for the gov't. But she is speaking for the people of the country. She's an elected official and that's her job.

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

No, you made up a strawman to argue against.  Obviously a leader of a country can speak for the country. 

Trudeau is leader of the gov't. Not the country. As i noted he is NOT the head of state.  So no, that's not obvious.

He didn't get more votes than other people, he didn't win more ridings than other people, he isn't the head of state... i don't think you've really thought this through.

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:


 

Which leader of a country spoke out against the Emergencies Act?

What does it matter if you're just going to claim that they don't represent the people.

Sorry man - you just don't understand how any of this works. I mean, if i have to explain that the prime minister isn't the head of state then there's a serious shortfall in your education and you'll just have to educate yourself on your own time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What does it matter if you're just going to claim that they don't represent the people.

I literally just said that an actual leader of a country does speak for the country, while a fringe politician, like May, does not.   May is part of parliament, not part of the government.  I’m not sure why that’s such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  
 

So, go ahead….  Name the leaders of countries who spoke out against the emergencies act.  
 

The “head of state” stuff is a strawman too.  I never mentioned that, and it’s irrelevant.  As if the GG is the only person who can speak for Canada!  LOL

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

On 4/5/2023 at 6:54 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

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.

You guys are afraid of Mr Socks? ?

You really need to get a grip.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You guys are afraid of Mr. Socks?

You really need to get a grip.

The word 'fear' isn't in my dictionary.  I consider Justin Trudeau  an enemy of Canada, therefore, my enemy.  You 'fawning' apologists are the enablers that keep this country on track for its third world status goal.  Get a grip yourself, open your eyes and look around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2023 at 12:58 PM, TreeBeard said:

I literally just said that an actual leader of a country does speak for the country, while a fringe politician, like May, does not.   May is part of parliament, not part of the government.  I’m not sure why that’s such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  

But we already noted justin isn't actually the leader of our country. he's just the leader of the gov't, the leader of the country is the King- he's the actual head of state, or the Governer general as his lawful appointee.

So justin has no more say than anyone else. When he goes to vote in the parliament he has no more votes than anyone else. He didn't get more votes in his riding than may got in hers as i recall.

On 4/6/2023 at 12:58 PM, TreeBeard said:

 

The “head of state” stuff is a strawman too.  I never mentioned that, and it’s irrelevant.  

That.  Is.  who. the .  leader.  of.  our.  country.  is.

That's what the 'head of state' means.

Of course you don't want to mention it - it pretty much proves you're wrong. A person who is NOT the leader of the country and has NOT been more empowered to speak for the people than any other MP is fine with you, but another who's in exactly the same boat doesnt'.

Sorry - justin can speak for the gov't of canada but not for the people any more than may can.

On 4/6/2023 at 12:58 PM, TreeBeard said:

 

As if the GG is the only person who can speak for Canada!  LOL

Exactly - it's completely retarded.  It's also what you've been arguing all along, that only the leader of the country speaks for the people of the country.

Glad we now agree that your argument was dumb.

In a parliament all people have equal right to speak for the people. Only a few have the right to speak for their party and only one has the right to say who can speak for the gov't of the day. But they ALL have equal right to speak for the people.

Next time learn how our system works before opening your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

In a parliament all people have equal right to speak for the people. Only a few have the right to speak for their party and only one has the right to say who can speak for the gov't of the day. But they ALL have equal right to speak for the people.

 

 

So you are saying May speaks for you.

 

She doesn't speak for me, my MP does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2023 at 10:10 PM, CdnFox said:

Sure. You almost can't have gov't without it. But - this bypasses some of the most important checks and balances that are in place to keep that from going too far.

Exactly.  The Emergencies Act was an excuse for ineptitude, but what’s frightening is that incompetence is now grounds for use of the Emergencies Act.  The public must hold governments in account to prevent ineptitude from reigning as a tyranny.  Have we entered a period of inept tyrants?

  • Like 1
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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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