BREAKING: Court rules Liberals' use of Emergencies Act was unjustified, unreasonable

[PIK]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

Of all my family members who traditionally vote Tory, every single one was screaming at the TV for Trudeau to clear the bums out. All retained the mental clarity to distinguish a protest from what it had turned into. Dream on, Harper would've reacted at least as harshly but much sooner.

And he had the nuts to distinguish himself and conservatism from that mod of mor0ns.

Herbie, if Trudeau only came out to talk, and show some leadership. But he didn't, he hid behind covid and family and said some pretty nasty stuff about them. And of course the illegal use of the emergency act. He could have ended it quickly.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

 

The time for the courts to step in and put a stop to an unconstitutional act in progress would have been THEN, not now, long after the fact.

Well they were moving to do that.  but this was 4 days - 4 days from the day he lit it to the day he shut it down - and he shut it down because the law says that after the gov't declares it the senate has to ratify it within a week or the like and the senate made it pretty clear that wasn't going to happen. 

The courts MUST be asked - the courts don't just randomly make decisions about things out of the blue. So several groups went to the courts and were just presenting their arguments when it was over.

The lesson here is that at the end of the day there were mechanisms in place to shut it down but they do take some time, and you NEED to be careful about who you elect. Elections matter and picking someone because of their hair gets you in trouble.

[blackbird]

The fact the court ruling came out a couple years after the fact, proves once again the uselessness of the Charter of Rights and the justice system.  What good is a Charter of Rights if they cannot protect citizens at the time?

[Zeitgeist]

I understand that a PM needs a tool to act in a crisis, but this situation could’ve been solved without such a radical wartime response.  The Senate saw this and was gearing up not to support the EA, so Trudeau read the room and pulled the plug, claiming it was no longer needed only a day after claiming it was.  Then he changed the channel to Ukraine.  Now that the courts have weighed in against the EA, hopefully future governments won’t act as rashly.

Trudeau alienated half the country in the process.  If he had met with the Convoy leaders, made a speech explaining that he would remove restrictions and negotiate a way out of the vaccine mandates, he would’ve come off as fair and conciliatory.  Instead he will be remembered as a wannabe petty dictator who insulted and misused power to deplatform political opponents.

Quite simply he was cowardly and divisive.  He cares a lot about looking good with the unaccountable script writers from the WHO, UN, etc, but doesn’t relate well to many common Canadians.  

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau alienated half the country in the process.

No surprise really given nearly a 1/4 of our population was already so gas-lit and pumped up with daily/hourly doses of misinformation.  That particular pandemic, spread entirely by word of mouth, has only spread and worsened BTW.

 

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 He cares a lot about looking good

He's a dilettante, as full of himself as half the people in Canada are full of gas.   

[herbie]

If anyone came out to talk to the mob they'd show the whole country what a spineless, intimidated, limp-wristed wimp they were. Betcha 50% of the supporters can't remember what the hell they were protesting today if you asked them.

So celebrate how one single Judge disagrees with everyone else.

[Zeitgeist]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No surprise really given nearly a 1/4 of our population was already so gas-lit and pumped up with daily/hourly doses of misinformation.  That particular pandemic, spread entirely by word of mouth, has only spread and worsened BTW.

 

“Misinformation” is usually just information you don’t like. There was much unsettled science and many ways of responding to the science politically.  Once the public health authorities and governments made a policy decision based on a scientific position, conflicting studies and opinions were often labeled misinformation.  Of course sometimes it was misinformation or simply error, but errors or inaccuracies were plentiful among the authorities too.  I get that sometimes you just have to fish or cut bait and go with a stance, but there were many serious impacts to consider from lockdowns and restrictions, as well as the virus.  We’ve talked that out.

I certainly don’t have more trust of government today than pre-pandemic.  Any time an expert for the authorities tells me they have the definitive answer and criticism is disinformation, I want to do some research.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The fact the court ruling came out a couple years after the fact, proves once again the uselessness of the Charter of Rights and the justice system.  What good is a Charter of Rights if they cannot protect citizens at the time?

It does no such thing.  Court cases regularly take time, and this one was a little complex.

And they DID protect the citizens at the time.  The first line of defense was the senate who made it pretty clear they were going to vote it down, which is why justin called it off.

Court cases were filed at the time and the court was prepared to hear them but trudeau pulled the plug so there was no urgent issue.  So everyone took their time.

But had trudeau tried to continue and had the senate gone for it (which they weren't) then the courts would have ruled quickly

[suds]

Excerpts from the Court summary...

1) Was the proclamation declaring a public order emergency unreasonable? Yes. 1) The proclamation applied to temporary measures in all of Canada's Provinces and Territories, despite the lack of evidence that it was necessary. Apart from the situation in Ottawa, the Police were able to enforce the rule of law by applying the criminal code and other legislation. 2) The CSIS Act defines threats to the security of Canada as "activities... directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective." The emergency required reasonable grounds to believe that the standard set out in s.2 of the CSIS Act had been met. The evidence in the record before the Court did not support a finding that the impugned activities reached that threshold.

 

2) Did the special powers created violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so could they be saved under s.1 of the Charter? The Court found... 1) The regulations infringed the guarantee of freedom of expression under s.2B as they were overblown in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace. 2) Found the economic order infringed s.8 by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank accounts and credit cards. 3) The infringements of s.2B and s.8 of the Charter were found to be not minimally impairing, and could not, therefore, be justified under s.1.

*** In my unprofessional opinion, I can't really see how an appeal can change anything. Your thoughts or anything you disagree with?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, suds said:

Excerpts from the Court summary...

1) Was the proclamation declaring a public order emergency unreasonable? Yes. 1) The proclamation applied to temporary measures in all of Canada's Provinces and Territories, despite the lack of evidence that it was necessary. Apart from the situation in Ottawa, the Police were able to enforce the rule of law by applying the criminal code and other legislation. 2) The CSIS Act defines threats to the security of Canada as "activities... directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective." The emergency required reasonable grounds to believe that the standard set out in s.2 of the CSIS Act had been met. The evidence in the record before the Court did not support a finding that the impugned activities reached that threshold.

 

2) Did the special powers created violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so could they be saved under s.1 of the Charter? The Court found... 1) The regulations infringed the guarantee of freedom of expression under s.2B as they were overblown in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace. 2) Found the economic order infringed s.8 by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank accounts and credit cards. 3) The infringements of s.2B and s.8 of the Charter were found to be not minimally impairing, and could not, therefore, be justified under s.1.

*** In my unprofessional opinion, I can't really see how an appeal can change anything. Your thoughts or anything you disagree with?

well the next challenge is to the supreme if they get the right to appeal so they may hope a few of them see it different

In my mind it's more like why appeal ? - just say 'we did the best we could and made our best decision and we'll learn from this and move on' - now they're going to drag it out and possibly lose again and they'll still be reminding people of this going into the next election. "hey - remember when we illegally took over canada, suspended people's rights and seized their assets? Ha - good times!"

[suds]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

well the next challenge is to the supreme if they get the right to appeal so they may hope a few of them see it different

In my mind it's more like why appeal ? - just say 'we did the best we could and made our best decision and we'll learn from this and move on' - now they're going to drag it out and possibly lose again and they'll still be reminding people of this going into the next election. "hey - remember when we illegally took over canada, suspended people's rights and seized their assets? Ha - good times!"

I thought it would go to the Supreme Court also. But someone here mentioned somewhere the next step would be the Federal Court of Appeals. But whatever, I doubt they're incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake.

Edited January 26 by suds

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, suds said:

I thought it would go to the Supreme Court also. But someone here mentioned somewhere the next step would be the Federal Court of Appeals. But whatever, I doubt they're incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake.

Well the court of appeals doesn't retry the case - they're the court that decides if there's any grounds to retry the case.  Basically they say " a decision was made, why are YOU saying it should be reconsidered?"   Reasons could include legal errors, new info, etc.

IF they win at appeals, THEN the case goes back to court to be reviewed and retried and that would be the supreme court.

IF they didn't have an appeals court everybody would just appeal every decision and the upper court's time would be wasted a lot. There has to be a reason to retry it. Having said that it's not that hard to win an appeal.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I certainly don’t have more trust of government today than pre-pandemic.

I don't either but I certainly have a greater appreciation for why we need it.  My deference to authority will always remain conditional and be a choice I make freely. That said I've experienced emergency life threatening situations both as someone being told what to do and as the one telling others what to do. Normality sometimes just gets suspended either by need or circumstance. That's why trust in the leader or people in charge can make or break a successful outcome. Posting clear unambiguous emergency information where everyone can see it is pretty key as well.

We went into COVID with very little trust and worse with little appreciation for why we need it.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:46 PM, TreeBeard said:

I doubt this ruling will have much effect on the average voter.  The Cons and their trucker allies will cheer, of course.   But the average Canadian won’t care what legal mechanism was used to remove the boneheads from the city, just that they were removed.  

We should all care about when the government abuses its power and infringes on people's Charter rights.  Sadly it just seems most people only care about it depending on whether they agree with the agenda, but that's not how the rule of law works.

[Moonlight Graham]

Just inject the medicine the government wants you to take and then STFU.

Funny how indigenous protestors blockading our railroads across the country and hijacking our economy and trade wasn't deemed a national emergency.

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I understand that a PM needs a tool to act in a crisis, but this situation could’ve been solved without such a radical wartime response.  The Senate saw this and was gearing up not to support the EA, so Trudeau read the room and pulled the plug, claiming it was no longer needed only a day after claiming it was.  Then he changed the channel to Ukraine.  Now that the courts have weighed in against the EA, hopefully future governments won’t act as rashly.

Trudeau alienated half the country in the process.  If he had met with the Convoy leaders, made a speech explaining that he would remove restrictions and negotiate a way out of the vaccine mandates, he would’ve come off as fair and conciliatory.  Instead he will be remembered as a wannabe petty dictator who insulted and misused power to deplatform political opponents.

Quite simply he was cowardly and divisive.  He cares a lot about looking good with the unaccountable script writers from the WHO, UN, etc, but doesn’t relate well to many common Canadians.  

The cops just needed to purchase a few tow trucks from someone.  Is that really an emergency?  Lol.

Edited January 26 by Moonlight Graham

[Nefarious Banana]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We should all care about when the government abuses its power and infringes on people's Charter rights.  Sadly it just seems most people only care about it depending on whether they agree with the agenda, but that's not how the rule of law works.

The sad part is that there are no repercussions for Trudeau's countless failures . . . blackface, groping, lying, etc., etc.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We should all care about when the government abuses its power and infringes on people's Charter rights.  Sadly it just seems most people only care about it depending on whether they agree with the agenda, but that's not how the rule of law works.

That is the biggest problem we face right now - a lot of people have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with human rights violations as long as it only impacts someone they disagree with.

If that continues to spread that will blow back on groups that a lot of these people DO like.  Pretty quick it's "who cares if trans rights get trampled" and "so what if that law hurts a bunch of lefties' and so on.

It's worth repeating Martin's quote

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except this time the left had better learn to speak out when they come for the right - as they did here. Or the right will come for the left in return one day.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is the biggest problem we face right now - a lot of people have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with human rights violations as long as it only impacts someone they disagree with.

If that continues to spread that will blow back on groups that a lot of these people DO like.  Pretty quick it's "who cares if trans rights get trampled" and "so what if that law hurts a bunch of lefties' and so on.

It's worth repeating Martin's quote

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except this time the left had better learn to speak out when they come for the right - as they did here. Or the right will come for the left in return one day.

So when are they coming for Robo?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

The sad part is that there are no repercussions for Trudeau's countless failures . . . blackface, groping, lying, etc., etc.

That's true.

A solution for that moving forward should be the introduction of recall legislation.  If a politician ESPECIALLY the leader breaks the rules THAT badly then the people should have the right to have that person recalled and force them to fight a byelection for their seat.  it's the one thing that would scare the leaders of parties the most.  It keeps it in the papers and embarrasses them, it forces them to focus on fighting a campaign rather than doing their other stuff, and it's a real threat.

Now - even if it never actually succeeds in forcing an election it's a very very strong and embarrassing political statement.

If you look at bc's recall legislation it's actually done a pretty good job.  When politicians stepped out of line the process was started and it did exactly what i just said. with very minor tweaking it would be very powerful.

You dont want it to be easy - then you just get parties refighting the last election constantly. But you want it to be doable, so if a prime minister REALLY screws up you can actually hold them to account without waiting till the next election

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

So when are they coming for Robo?

Technically he doesn't qualify as a 'person' - but they might download him later.

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't either but I certainly have a greater appreciation for why we need it.  My deference to authority will always remain conditional and be a choice I make freely. That said I've experienced emergency life threatening situations both as someone being told what to do and as the one telling others what to do. Normality sometimes just gets suspended either by need or circumstance. That's why trust in the leader or people in charge can make or break a successful outcome. Posting clear unambiguous emergency information where everyone can see it is pretty key as well.

We went into COVID with very little trust and worse with little appreciation for why we need it.

I think that most people rallied in support of government for about the first year or 18 months of the pandemic. Once the vaccine became available and deployed, people began to really question whether the mandates and lockdowns and face coverings were warranted given the high toll socially, emotionally, and academically on people. I don’t suggest revisiting those well trodden grounds, but it’s fair to say that the goodwill and benefit of a doubt had faded by the time Omicron kicked in. Putting out a campfire with a firehose (Emergencies Act as a response to the Freedom Convoy) wasn’t the best move given how frayed people’s nerves were by the end of the pandemic.

I thought Trudeau was a pretty solid presence early in the pandemic, but he didn’t turn out for many people later on. The front line worker  truckers were forced to get vaccinated to cross the border and the federal workers faced the same mandates, even after the mild variant wave hit and most people were vaccinated.  It looked and felt like tyranny to many people.  A government shouldn’t make people who don’t have the same beliefs on vaccines and mandates feel this way.  It’s an unnecessary suspension of constitutional rights, especially or at least once Omicron rolled in and vaccines were widely available to all. That’s how revolutions start. The whole mess could’ve been resolved with a more conciliatory approach and open dialogue between government and opposition groups. It was poor leadership.

Edited January 26 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I thought Trudeau was a pretty solid presence early in the pandemic, but he didn’t turn out for many people later on.

Well, as I often say, he wasn't Trump. And the outcome in terms of lives lost is all I bother to look at

As for all the bullshit about tyranny and Nazis...🤣. You people went into COVID already long since primed and gas-lit for that shit-show of a spectacle. Case in point, when the fist lock-down occurred our Area Planning Commission decided to hold its meetings over ZOOM instead of in person. Within minutes of this the emails and messages about tyranny and oppression started flying...there were people coming unglued immediately not just 12 or 18 months later.  

In terms of hindsight and using it to guide us thru the next emergency.  For me COVID reinforced what I've been saying for decades, that we need to subject governments to the penetrating sort of transparency that would make Orwell himself blush.  More to the point COVID focused my thinking on why we need to do this.

To make trust something that is based on things like reality, precedence and expertise. It's why I said above that clear unambiguous information that everyone can see it is so key.

Governments unfortunately find it difficult to trust us and I think the reason why is clear enough, they want to avoid triggering the shit-show of a spectacle that so many mistrustful people put on display throughout and following COVID.  Governments went into COVID just as primed and gas-lit by mistrust and fear as anyone. 

 

Edited January 26 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, as I often say, he wasn't Trump. And the outcome in terms of lives lost is all I bother to look at

As for all the bullshit about tyranny and Nazis...🤣. You people went into COVID already long since primed and gas-lit for that shit-show of a spectacle. Case in point, when the fist lock-down occurred our Area Planning Commission decided to hold its meetings over ZOOM instead of in person. Within minutes of this the emails and messages about tyranny and oppression started flying...there were people coming unglued immediately not just 12 or 18 months later.  

In terms of hindsight and using it to guide us thru the next emergency.  For me COVID reinforced what I've been saying for decades, that we need to subject governments to the penetrating sort of transparency that would make Orwell himself blush.  More to the point COVID focused my thinking on why we need to do this.

To make trust something that is based on things like reality, precedence and expertise. It why I said above that clear unambiguous information that everyone can see it is so key.

Governments unfortunately find it difficult to trust us and I think the reason why his clear enough, they want to avoid the shit-show of a spectacle that so many mistrustful people put on display throughout and following COVID.  Governments went into COVID just as primed and gas-lit by mistrust and fear as anyone. 

 

Perhaps early on the measures were more justified, but since Omicron appeared the same number of people roughly have died of Covid each of the past few years. Not much changed to outcomes after the mandates were lifted. Lockdowns blew a hole in the society. Rather than focusing on the vulnerable, we damaged a lot of healthy young people. I’m not sure that the thousands of elderly who weren’t allowed to have visitors and who were locked into their homes universally supported the measures either.  I know you did, but you’re not the only Canadian. A government that doesn’t listen or represent people and plays loose with constitutional rights will face the consequences.  As discussed many times, how much freedom are people willing to sacrifice in the name of safety? China kept its people very safe from the virus, but I wouldn’t want to live there.  

Edited January 26 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Lockdowns blew a hole in the society.

Our society has been like Swiss cheese for decades. Good grief.

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I know you did, but you’re not the only Canadian

I was in the process of getting my Mom into a seniors home, the incubator she called it, when the first lock-down occurred.  Oddly enough I practically had every highways and ferry between me and Vancouver to myself.  I was never pulled over, arrested or questioned by the authorities for being out and about.  This heavy-handed unconstitutional lock-down was no where near as heavy-handed as you're making it sound. 

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

A government that doesn’t listen or represent people and plays loose with constitutional rights will face the consequences.  As discussed many times, how much freedom are people willing to sacrifice in the name of safety? China kept its people very safe from the virus, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

According to you we lived in Nazi Germany. People that play fast and loose with definitions and perceptions sacrifice their ability to think straight.