CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 (edited) https://archive.ph/660EK#selection-555.8-555.96 A number of Freedom Convoy protesters who had their bank accounts frozen by the Trudeau Government’s invocation of Emergencies Act have sued the Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland The development comes just weeks after a Federal Court judge ruled that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, which gave the government unprecedented power, was a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two lawsuits were announced on Wednesday, the first of which was announced by lawyer Keith Wilson of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. “BREAKING: On the 2-year anniversary of the Federal Government illegally invoking war measures against its citizens and targeting key protestors in Ottawa by freezing their bank accounts, today Tamara Lich, Chris Barber, Tom Marazzo, Danny Bulford and other protestors who were targeted by @JustinTrudeau and @cafreeland have filed lawsuits against the Federal Government,” he stated on X. “Sec. 24 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives Canadians the right to sue their government for damages when Charter rights are violated.” Wilson further stated that the lawsuits seeks $2 million in damages for each plaintiff. Hours later on Wednesday’s Valentine’s Day — the two year anniversary that Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act — a second class-action lawsuit consisting of twenty plaintiffs was announced, this time by Loberg Ector LLP, a law firm based out of Calgary, Alberta. Loberg Ector’s Facebook account stated that “The Plaintiffs in this action seek compensation and related relief arising from the unjustified and unconstitutional actions of the Liberal government, as well as the actions of certain police agencies and Canadian financial institutions who followed the unlawful orders of the Liberal government, and other defendants who participated in or promoted these actions.” Happy Emergencies Act Day! I hope you all look back and fondly remember how your government shot you with rubber bullets and tear gas for your own good! — Tamara Lich (@LichTamara) February 14, 2024 Tamara Lich, one of the main organizers of the 2022 Ottawa protest, celebrated the day by wishing social media users a “Happy Emergencies Act Day!” “I hope you all look back and fondly remember how your government shot you with rubber bullets and tear gas for your own good!” Edited February 15 by CdnFox 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 15 Author Report Share Posted February 15 Can open - worms everywhere.... It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but for trudeau this is bad news no matter what. It's going to keep something he'd rather not be focusing on right in the media's eye for the next year i'd bet and that's not what he needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Not sure this goes anywhere, but to anyone who understands law, there is no doubt that rights were violated both on the citizens side who were held hostage by the convoy, and the draconian measures taken by Trudeau after fear mongering, to stop it. No less, after him scolding Jingping for crushing Hong Kong protests using equally draconian measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said: Not sure this goes anywhere, but to anyone who understands law, there is no doubt that rights were violated both on the citizens side who were held hostage by the convoy, and the draconian measures taken by Trudeau after fear mongering, to stop it. No less, after him scolding Jingping for crushing Hong Kong protests using equally draconian measures. Get over it LOL The only ones that will win anything s the lawyers. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Get over it LOL The only ones that will win anything s the lawyers. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 2 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said: What's your point? You are like old time scratched and skipping record. LOL Time to get with the times LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: You are like old time scratched and skipping record. You're like nails on a chalkboard, broadcast over a megaphone, on loop, inside a car driving for 5 hours, during an ice storm, with a near empty gas tank and no stations for 15kms, with a girlfriend who is menstruating nagging you about not filling up before going. And you work tomorrow. You're headed to your in laws, by the way. Thats you. LOL LOL LOL (to infinity, plus 3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 18 Author Report Share Posted February 18 8 hours ago, Perspektiv said: Not sure this goes anywhere, but to anyone who understands law, there is no doubt that rights were violated both on the citizens side who were held hostage by the convoy, and the draconian measures taken by Trudeau after fear mongering, to stop it. No less, after him scolding Jingping for crushing Hong Kong protests using equally draconian measures. So - let me ask you this. Normally when people's rights are being violated or the gov't feels its' not a lawful or reasonable protest the first thing they do is go to the courts and get a ruling to that effect and then declare it illegal. After all - justin trudeau has no lawful power to determine if something is illegal, that's what the judges do So why didn't that happen? Why not use the courts if it's so obvious there was a breech. One lady did and immediately got an injunction to stop using horns between certain hours AND THEY DID - THEY STOPPED. But the gov't nor anyone else ever asked the courts to say the protest wasn't lawful. But we do that for pretty much every other protest that goes too far. So here's the thing. If it was 'obviously' unlawful and a violation of others rights that was intolerable.... why not get a court order to stop it? And why stop it if a judge hasn't said you have to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 11 hours ago, Perspektiv said: You're like nails on a chalkboard, broadcast over a megaphone, on loop, inside a car driving for 5 hours, during an ice storm, with a near empty gas tank and no stations for 15kms, with a girlfriend who is menstruating nagging you about not filling up before going. And you work tomorrow. You're headed to your in laws, by the way. Thats you. LOL LOL LOL (to infinity, plus 3). Back again Eh?? Keeping on biting at that rubber worm LOL 10 hours ago, CdnFox said: So - let me ask you this. Normally when people's rights are being violated or the gov't feels its' not a lawful or reasonable protest the first thing they do is go to the courts and get a ruling to that effect and then declare it illegal. After all -.... And why stop it if a judge hasn't said you have to? Incorrect. The event or action occurs. Arrests are made,.... then you go to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venandi Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 12 hours ago, CdnFox said: ... why stop it if a judge hasn't said you have to? It appears to me that only recently (like now) are those very rulings coming to to the fore or even being discussed in a semi-coherent manner. It also seems that these rulings, discussions, and in some cases the dropping of charges (not to mention the pending law suits) are occurring long after the fact. Essentially after the damage has already been done and the precedent for future abuses set. I fear that the notion of generating an emergency to coerce a frightened public into the acceptance of draconian measures has now been established as SOP and that we will be seeing it again in the future. Covid restrictions were the warmup and the emergencies act was a trial run; a test if you will. And IMO, we collectively failed the test pretty badly. For the sake of illustration though please put all of that aside because it certainly won’t be solved here anyway. Consider only the the freezing of bank accounts after the Emergencies Act was invoked. IMO, willful government misinformation and a compliant media were on full display during this event. If nothing else, that, and that alone, should send shivers down the backs of voters (of all stripes) and serve as a sterling example of a societal trajectory much to be feared. So, my question really boils down to does it actually send those shivers? Does it resonate with those folks who supported the use of the Emergencies Act? I think it’s an important starting point because when deciding where any line should be drawn it seems appropriate to identify and agree upon the grid reference of where the “bridge too far” is located. Identifying and establishing the line not to be crossed and working backwards from there just seems reasonable to me. From that vantage point though it would take binoculars to see my personal line in the sand, I'm simply curious if there is a collective one... something that any and all would consider abhorrent in a country like Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 18 Author Report Share Posted February 18 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Incorrect. The event or action occurs. Arrests are made,.... then you go to court. Nope. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rcmp-started-enforcing-the-injunction-against-the-fairy-creek-blockades-a-year-ago-49-sentenced-so-far-1.6456353 https://globalnews.ca/news/8612352/ambassador-bridge-blockade-injunction-ontario-court/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/coastal-gaslink-protestors-contempt-1.6679244 https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1772531 https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/09/news/kinder-morgan-files-injunction-against-pipeline-protesters I mean - i could post a few hundred more. Protest is legal in Canada. The ONLY people who can decide that it's crossed the line into unlawful protest is a judge. The normal course of action is that the injured party, either company or city or province etc, would go to a judge and get a court order to stop. If the protesters ignore that then they can be arrested on contempt of court charges, and if the gov't feels other charges apply to specific individuals then great but anyone protesting is in contempt of court at that point. In most cases protests break up at that point and perhaps a handful stay to deliberately get arrested to make a point. Why do you always speak about things you don't understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 20 Author Report Share Posted February 20 On 2/18/2024 at 6:48 AM, Venandi said: So, my question really boils down to does it actually send those shivers? Does it resonate with those folks who supported the use of the Emergencies Act? I think it’s an important starting point because when deciding where any line should be drawn it seems appropriate to identify and agree upon the grid reference of where the “bridge too far” is located. Identifying and establishing the line not to be crossed and working backwards from there just seems reasonable to me. From that vantage point though it would take binoculars to see my personal line in the sand, I'm simply curious if there is a collective one... something that any and all would consider abhorrent in a country like Canada. Not nearly enough - but it's doing so more right now because the question is being asked "if it was allowed for justin and the truckers - who might PP use it on when he's in power?" The challenge is that at this time in history the left is fine with human rights violations as long as it's someone they don't like who's being violated. But a handful are realizing that they won't have much of an argument if it goes the other way against them in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 On 2/18/2024 at 6:48 AM, Venandi said: I fear that the notion of generating an emergency to coerce a frightened public into the acceptance of draconian measures has now been established as SOP and that we will be seeing it again in the future. The notion you're talking about has been SOP for centuries. You should be more concerned about how bad an actual emergency can be. I conduct safety drills at least twice a week that are based on scenarios not notions. That said we have used scenarios based on people losing their shit during the emergency. COVID underscored why that's a good...notion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.