This hard-won right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is the reason so many of us felt queasy about the Emergency Economic Measures
The government is setting precedents and everyone who agrees with what they did and whatever they may do with the inquiry ought to think very carefully because these precedents will determine the actions of future governments; including the ones you may or may not be quite so sympathetic to.
If they continue with a narrative doesn't legitimately (legitimately should be emphasized) deal with the accusations of overreach, future governments will be able to use the same path to attack any political opposition.
If the inquiry turns into a whitewashing that hides inconvenient documents or truths due to 'cabinet confidence' or 'national security', that sets the path for any government, right or left, to follow in the future.
If this is allowed to continue, Canada will be like China or North Korea. A communist country where the government can do whatever they like and the rule of law doesn’t exist.
And the wimpy comment about so called “name calling” when referring to Trudeau and Freeland as King and Queen is just a soppy objection by supporter of their kind of Liberals. I have supported the Liberals in the past but JT and his ilk are more like Comminists than the Liberals I could support.
This article nicely captures not only the gross injustice, but the historic nature of the government's extreme overreach against fundamental rights.
Except, I think the overreach goes even a step further than suggested by this article. It isn't simply that it is a general warrant. From the article, "Rather than going to a justice and swearing an oath about why a particular person’s bank account needed to be searched for particular transactions relating to a particular illegal blockade ..." The implication here is that it was just the manner of approach, that there was an illegal blockade that the government could have frozen the same bank accounts had they followed the correct process. But I think that implication is also wrong.
The funds in question were from people supporting the Freedom Convoy 2022 which was only the protest in Ottawa. The crowdsourced funds, and the people involved, were only about the Ottawa protest. The Windsor, Ontario, and Alberta border blockades were neither the same people nor were they supported by the same crowdfunding mechanisms. Those could be termed illegal blockades.
As far as I'm aware, the Freedom Convoy 2022 Ottawa protest was never legally recognized as an "illegal blockade". Quite the opposite. In the February 7, 2022, court order regarding honking, the judge barred air horns and train horns (but not honking in general, as many journalists misinformed us) but also declared, "7. THIS COURT ORDERS that, provided the terms of this Order are complied with, the Defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest."
Not only did a judge view the protest as being legal -- if they stopped using air horns and train horns per the injunction -- despite the descriptions of the complaint, but the affidavits address even the idea of the protest being described as a "blockade". As noted by Daniel Bulford, one of the protest representatives, "I have been working closely with the Ottawa Police Service, the RCMP, and the Parliamentary Protective Service. I have been liaising with them since early last week."
As noted by even the Ottawa police at the time, and many times in interviews, that the protest leaders were consistently working with the police to keep emergency lanes open and out of residential areas, with the police even directly where the trucks can go. Repeatedly in the videos you can see people could travel throughout the downtown and easily get there, and go about their business. There was no blockade in Ottawa. Now, the police themselves did block off some streets on their own, even when there were no trucks there (e.g., Laurier bridge). But that was not the protestors.
Not a blockade. Not an illegal protest (by a judge's own statement).
Further, the article above notes that, "The emergency measures required financial institutions to search their records for customers suspected of “directly or indirectly” engaging in a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”
Had the government instead gone to a judge with the same position to get a warrant as suggested in the article, I think it would have -- or should have, failed. The Freedom Convoy 2022 was designed and declared to be a peaceful protest from the start, complete with warnings to watch out for agent provocateurs, to keep out of any government buildings, to be respectful of police and officials, and to avoid anything that could possibly be interpreted as hostile.
E.g., Jan. 23 video of her saying, "We are now starting to be attacked and smeared, and they're starting to say some pretty nasty things. ... So what I'm going to ask of you is to, if you are inclined, pray for them because they know not what they do. We are not here to spread hate. We are not here to create more division. We are here to stand up together and we are here to love one another, and forgive one another."
Or her Jan. 27 retweet from co-leader BJ Dichter, "Please join us in Ottawa for a peaceful and loving protest where we can rediscover freedom together."
Or also Jan. 27, "We are going to win this by showing love for one another. Be spiritual and be kind to all those around you."
And, retweet of Jan 27 post saying, "Everyone in Ottawa PLEASE film everything and everyone. If someone calls for violence GET THEM ON CAMERA. Shout “fed” at them and surround them. Ray Epps types will be in there trying to set people up. The media has shown that this is what they plan on framing the convoy as."
Or Jan. 28, ""Calm, peaceful and with love for everyone including those we disagree with."
and she calls out the expected agitators and agent provocateurs, and says "Keep calm and peaceful."
Or Jan. 28 retweet directed to all volunteer local organizers calling out warnings of agent provocateurs and reiterating to 1) not enter any government building or property, 2) treat all police officers with respect.
"In these encounters, I have observed that all of the truckers I met have been, at all times, friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful. At no time have observed any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour nor have I at any time felt intimidated or unsafe. I state this as someone who was once the victim of assault on the streets of Ottawa in 2004 and who suffered PTSD as a result.
5. I have also observed that the truckers, and their supporters, are made up of the most diverse, inclusive and varied cross-section of Canadian demographics that I have ever experienced in my life. As examples, I saw a Sikh truck driver with his children, an Indigenous elder giving a blessing to the gathering, a black preacher performing a Sunday service, Canadians of all ethnicities and multiple families with their children.
6. I have observed truckers decorating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with flowers as well as guarding it. I also observed an encampment beside the Terry Fox Memorial as a means of watching watch over it. At no point have I ever seen violent or threatening behaviour.
...
9. What I have observed is not in accord with what I have seen in the media or what I have experienced directly either with the truckers, their supporters or the gathering of people on Parliament Hill. The media appears to be framing the convoy and the events around their presence in Ottawa in the most unfavourable, erroneous and distorted manner possible."
Given all of this information, what supporter or donator to the protest could possibly think of the protest as a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”?
The protest was designed from beginning to end, and as seen on hundreds of hours of video, and as attested to in court affidavits, as a peaceful and inclusive protest actively trying to suppress any attempts at breaches of the peace.
So, in summary:
1. Yes, to the main thesis of the article, the warrantless search and seizure is the biggest issue.
2. But, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, it should have failed anyway because it was not an "illegal blockade" but a legal protest, as even a judge certified.
3. And, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, and kept the justifications based on "reasonably expected" breach of the peace, it also should have failed because the protest was always designed from beginning to end to be peaceful and respectful, notwithstanding the misinformation of politicians and journalists.
[Edit: Notably, from the fact that the government could have gone to a court to get such warrants and didn't, one can reasonably infer that they know they'd lose because of items 2 and 3 here. The reasonable inference is that the use of the Emergencies Act was not a mere overstep, but recognized as the only means by which they could shut down the protest and maintain the false narratives.
They also could have sent an envoy to discuss with protestors, as they did with the 2020 (illegal) railway blockade and BLM protests, but didn't. It could have saved the $36M in police costs, the run on the banks, and the international embarrassment of authoritarian overreach.
Knowing that the government has plenty of legal experts, negotiators, and advisors, it is a reasonable inference that these were all intentionally avoided to maintain the defamatory narrative the government and corporate media created when it started. Losing in court or to be seen negotiating with "those people" with "unacceptable views" would reveal the man behind the curtain and admitting that they had mischaracterized the protests and protestors would have been a big hit to the "us vs them" divisive politics driving campaigns and policy efforts.
Or, so it is reasonable to infer. Alternative explanations could be that they are just police-state authoritarians who don't care about the rule of law, or that they are politically and legally inept. Extreme incompetence, dictatorial maleficence, or tribalistic corruption seem the only options here that I can see. If there's another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.]
Exactly. The clear purpose of everything the government did was to maintain control of the narrative, regardless of citizens' rights. If they needed to be violated in order to maintain information control, the only question for the government was how to do it.
The article provide interesting information and I was enjoying the perspective until the author referenced Trudeau and Freeland with the titles of King and Queen. I do not respect name calling and therefore struggled to finish reading the article with curiosity and an open mind.
It’s possible the Kind and Queen reference wasn’t as much a standalone insult as it was a reference to the historical reference in the article. He’s making a relationship between the foundation of the law (against the monarch coming into your house) and government leaders coming into your bank account. He’s making the case that if MPs use their power to investigate private property without permission from a judge, they are acting in the same vein as a King and Queen.
It’s taking a comment “personally” by someone who goes for the kind of liberalism that JT and Freeland have invented. Just ask Dan McTague - a Liberal MP for 18 years who resigned over this kind of “liberalism” what he thinks of JT!
Yes it seems a defensive comment against a slight against someone held to be perfect. It should be a yellow flag for anyone if they can’t admit the person they are following has faults
You guys will go to any lengths, as has been proven regularly, to never miss an insult no matter how lame.
And should anyone disagree with that, they must be Liberals and blindly follow anything and everything the Liberal Party puts out.
Do you lot have any idea how boring that is? You can't settle on a Party Leader since Harper abandoned you but you can wallow in disjointed, disconnected, group despair over the other guys. Boring!
No yellow flags, just lots of big *uck Trudeau flags because you lot are all so literate. It's enough to make people not vote Con.
Yes, that was much my reaction as well. And no, I wasn't 'outraged' but I thought it a bit of unnecessary sarcasm that damaged an otherwise thoughtful argument.
You should try being a trucker only to find out you're misogynistic, racist, a White Supremist, etc and as a result you find yourself scrambling to pay your rent and bills three months in advance because it seems your bank account may be frozen for the $100 LEGAL donation you made...
No sympathy. If the "truckers" can afford to drive across Canada, to Ottawa, in February, hoping to feed off of a lot of $100 donations rather than work, that's on them. Arriving in Ottawa, no clear plan, no clear leaders, just big honking trucks blocking everyone, demanding to speak to JT, demanding that the GG take over and other silly ass ideas. No one, least of all Pat King or Tamara Lich or the crypto guy, thought it would last as long as it did. But it did and now everyone involved will have to pay for their bad decisions. Where did the bulk of that $1mil Tamara received go?
If you are not a "misogynistic, racist, a White Supremist, etc", ignore it. Tho it sounds like you are fishing.
And were you never taught, as a child, that two wrongs do not make a right? If you want to call JT names, email or write him directly. Spare us the boring repetition.
Oh, and read the fine print on the contract you signed with your bank.
I’m sorry that has been your experience. And I guess that is my point, you have been labeled and it has real consequences. The reasons behind your actions are distorted by these labels. This applies to all sides.
I wasn't looking for sympathy. It's not needed. I was pointing out that while you were put off by the use of the word king, it is Trudeau himself who has thrown out some of the worst names and taken the worst action. So if Trudeau or his supporters don't want to hear him called king, then perhaps they shouldn't be throwing out those much more severe slurs themselves.
Considering the Trudeau Liberals are now pushing through Bill C 5 reducing mandatory sentences for violent crimes with a weapon, it proves very openly that the invocation of the Emergency Act was politically motivated. You can rob a store with a gun and have house arrest under their new idea of law enforcement and punishment. To even consider peacefully protesting against their vaccine mandates ( the same my body, my choice, they are all in a lather about saving for abortions) and they will financially, through unjust bail hearings, keep you locked in side, destroy and remove you from any chance of regaining control of your own life. The hypocrisy and evil that resides behind their actions must never be tolerated in any democratic society. It’s the Justin Trudeau Liberals and the Jagmeet Singh NDP that need to be financially and legally held responsible for their politically motivated actions. They should be removed and never allowed to participate in Canadian society. The same punishment they have placed on the unvaccinated.
The chance of a human (although not necessarily a person) dying as the result of an abortion is 100%. Since the vaccines don't reduce transmission, the chance of a human dying as the result of someone else not getting vaccinated is exactly zero.
And, even if it were greater than zero, that wouldn't justify mandatory vaccination. Every time you get behind the wheel of your car, you create a non-zero chance of killing someone. And yet you are allowed to drive - because the chance is small. And clearly one's right to drive is vastly less consequential than one's right to refuse medical treatment.
Currently, that is correct. At previous times during this pandemic, people died because they couldn't get medical services because the hospitals were clogged with COVID patients. Once the vaccines arrived, they punched way about their percentage of the population in taking up ICU spaces. Even people in car accidents arriving at ER's got sent to other places, and let's not ignore Saskatchewan.
Getting pregnant didn't risk access to healthcare for other people. Getting COVID and ending up in the ICU because you weren't smart enough to get vaccinated did.
Again, there was no mandatory vaccination. Businesses did it because they're; required to provide the safest possible workplaces, or risk being sued. Governments did it around the world on the advice of their health experts. The way it should be.
If governments punish you for not being vaccinated (eg by banning you from travel), then vaccination is mandatory. Remember you agreed that keeping unvaxxed people off flights doesn't protect others in the flight - because the shots don't reduce transmission.
Why? You made a choice, you suffer the consequences. That's how the rules work. Your right to travel is not protected by anything as we covered yesterday. That also ignores how many countries there are where vaccinations are required to visit. I don't have a problem with it. You'll have your chance to change the government in 3 years or less.
True enough, yet why are many of these same states making birth control difficult to access?
Is an article that ignores cases per 100000 and is 4 months old really relevant? Omicron has definitely changed the game, but hospitalizations are the number that matters. Your article suggests vaccines are a huge success.
I don’t disagree that vaccines stopped many people from dying and provided a purpose. I just believe that the choice in getting a vaccine is a personal one just as is an abortion. I am one hundred percent for bodily autonomy on and for all medical decisions. No one should be forced into any procedure nor should they be punished if they chose otherwise. All decisions in life bare consequences to which we should be made aware of but each must have the right to chose for themselves what is done to their body.
Having an abortion affects one person. Choosing not to get vaccinated can impact several. That's where I see the difference. If that person ends up taking up a hospital or ICU space, as they have done at a rate far above their percentage of the population, the decision not to get vaccinated can affect access to healthcare in the form of a routine surgery being cancelled. Depending on how long you're in, it could affect several. Yes, there will be vaccinated people in the ICU as well...but at least, they made the effort. And for the last time, no one forced you to get vaccinated.
Tell me you don't honestly believe that! If that was true there would be no reason to protect abortion rights at all (or contraception). It would simply be a non-topic along the lines of "New research shows that humans breathe air".
You know the reason most new covid cases are in fully vaccinated people is that most Canadians have been vaccinated. The sub-headline in that Abbotsford News article reads, "Protection against severe illness still shown in statistics". And the article you are touting as your proof is from January 10th. You could have gone to the BCCDC if you were so interested in BC stats. They would give you up-to-date information.
The article is saying the unvaccinated are no threat to the vaccinated. I have found further information on people vaccinated with three or four doses are getting the virus over those who are unvaccinated. Another fact, natural immunity is stronger than the vaccine! Another fact, many of those with three or four doses are dying as well or being hospitalized. Doctor last time told my 85 year old relative he did not feel competent in telling her to get a fourth booster. He could not be certain if it would aid her, so allowed her to make that choice on her own. She decided to get the fourth dose and then tested positive for the virus and was sick. She still is. The fact is the vaccine drops the white counts in those vaccinated, for two weeks or in some cases longer, leaving the recipient of these vaccines, open to high infection rates. Not only from COVID but any virus or sickness for some period of time. It is the reason they do not consider them validly vaccinated until two weeks have passed. It is not I who is being lazy, so please refrain from spreading more misinformation.
Yes I do believe prevention is easier than abortion. We all know what causes and what prevents pregnancy. After all they are teaching children about this in grade school so it’s no longer unknown or caused by ignorance. That makes it preventable. It’s called, as hard as this is for you to believe, common sense. For those lacking such they can get an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Many childless parents would love to have children.
Sorry ML, you've confused me again. What does Bill C-5 have to do with the EA and how is it politically motivated? You might as well say when Skippy and JT get up in the morning and brush their teeth they are politically motivated. The
Have you read the bill?
Robbery with firearm:
Paragraph 344(1)(a): MMP of 5 years (first offence) and 7 years (subsequent offences) - where firearm is restricted or prohibited or if any firearm is used and the offence is committed in connection with a criminal organization.
Read the definition of “repealed” sir. That would be my first suggestion. The connection to the truckers treatment is over reach and abortion law is non existent in Canada. With abortion the victim loses their life with no appeal and the same went for the truckers bail hearings which they were subjected to under martial law with no rebuke. Some remained in custody for weeks on bail hearings so were found guilty and held in custody along with extreme restrictions due to political interference in our courts with out going to trial. I will stand by that. The judge was partial as he was a past Liberal MP which in itself speaks volumes. As was the mayor of Ottawa!! With a charge of mischief, that has yet to be proven in a court of law, the actions taken were unprecedented and not even acceptable under any code of law in our Justice system. Period. They actually brought Tamara into the courtroom with shackles on her arms and legs for a mischief charge. So please the excess used by government , courts, where truth was completely absent, causing the complete destruction of our Justice system, charter of rights and freedoms, and our Constitution.
The convoy followed the requests of the injunction and horn blowing they stopped. That’s following the law and they did as they were asked in moving vehicles from residential areas and no streets were blocked to any traffic. Emergency vehicles and others had access at all times.
You need to fall victim to the perpetrators and suffer the consequences of the Justice system and see for yourself that the victim of these crimes are completely dismissed and unimportant. They get no hearing or any thought, as they allow the criminals back out on the streets to repeat the crimes in a circular pattern that never ends. That’s their Justice. You get to be the victim over and over again so just who suffers the consequences of so called Justice! We are suppose to be all equal under the law but no longer. The victims are the ones held in prison for life and these government pigs at the taxpayer trough, who are surrounded by security, are the ones perpetrating the crimes against humanity!
Jagmeet backed Trudeau up to put in the emergencies act that was completely out of line. They were outright lying to Canadians about the convoy. They had zero to do with arson and many of those things that were not proven but pure rumour and misinformation. Just as was the idea it was foreign funded. They pulled a page out of the Democrat book and suggested it was An insurrection. It was nothing of the kind and only those who believe lies and misinformation would say such a thing. This Liberal Government of Canada is corrupt to its core and it has destroyed any faith in the Canadian justice system, the police, the banking system along with any institutions under their control. Jagmeet still backs Trudeau’s corruption and is aiding him to continue his disgraceful, unconstitutional and pathetic leadership.
I agree with your arguments. Let's hope that transparency prevails. I am, however, less enchanted by your snotty references to the King and Queen. Whatever you may think, they do deserve some respect for the positions they hold. Your comments are unbecoming of a future attorney, who is no doubt trying to impress his peers, but whom I would not be inclined to hire. As an aspiring attorney your opinions should be kept private and more importantly not shared in a public forum. That's good journalism! Keep it civil!
That's an interesting take. I did not see it that way. The title of King and Queen are not insults, but are themselves respected titles. Queen Elizabeth is well-respected and her title is honourable.
I read the usage here as a short-hand reference to the types of powers that monarchs have (or had) compared to democratically elected officials. The shorthand here is saying that Trudeau and Freeland were not being respectful of their positions but were instead assuming undemocratic and unconstitutional powers that are of the kind previously used by monarchs and that led to the very development of modern constitutional democracies in order to stop from happening.
Insults are usually comparisons with lower-level conditions, such as indicating lower intelligence or capacity, not a comparison with a higher level of authority and respect. It seems quite civil, especially by way of comparison with contemporary politicians and journalists calling people all sorts of names -- racist, misogynist, transphobic, white supremacist, holding "unacceptable views", and referring to "those people" being a threat to our children. Those are insults, and demagoguery.
As to attorneys keeping their opinions private, I almost at a loss for words. Attorneys and law professors regularly espouse their personal views publicly, often about specific cases, and certainly giving legal opinions including in the press. There's nothing unprofessional about that. Some even have careers built on that such as human rights lawyers and organizations like the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, both whom have podcasts / Youtube channels.
In fact, there are many popular Youtube channels that are praticing lawyers. Alan Dershowitz has the Dershow and is constantly espousing his opinions. Nate the Lawyer, Rekieta Law, Legal Byets, Legal Mindset, Hoeg Law, Runkle of the Bailey, Viva and Barnes.
Indeed it comes with some risk that potential clients may chose their lawyers based on the content of those legal opinions, but that is probably only an issue if there were lawyers sitting around with no work to do as a result of clients not choosing to work with them. I'm quite sure that we're not in that set of circumstances.
But, you are certainly free to chose your own lawyer on whatever basis you like. I just don't think most people would use that approach, and I don't think the author here has anything to worry about in that respect.
Dershowitz was once a respected constitutional/criminal lawyer. Now he is a paid entertainer similar to Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino and Rudy Giuliani. More money in show biz apparently and you can say anything. Just because he was a lawyer does not mean anyone should pay attention to his "opinions".
The Emergency Act replaced the war measures act , which gave the state more authority. This act was supposed to have built in save guards such as independent review. Its use was limited to real emergencies. The question is whether or not it was justified in this case. No it was not. Laws were in place but not enforced which allowed that stupidity to go on. The implementation of the law was purely a political move. However it was our elected representatives that voted for it and it is the law of the land. So it can be used.
Is the inquiry even going to get into the topic of whether the donations were basically a scam? It's hardly an unlikely chance: one American funding-call after another has turned out to be sliding a healthy payday over to the organizers, just change for the actual Cause. Steve Bannon had already been arrested for a Wall funding scam when Trump pardoned him.
I never heard more about the Convoy supporter who blew his whole savings, some tens of thousands, and only got runaround when he looked to the organizers for compensation.
How much was actually contributed, but not frozen, and never returned. How much was spent on legitimate Convoy expenses? Were records kept? Nobody ever seemed to ask why food and gas for a few thousand people would cost so many millions.
It could be that the freezing actually protected gullible Convoy contributors more than it helped anybody else.
Isn’t the remedy to this some sort of nature order argument? We all agree that some intolerance is bad- murder is wrong, speeding kills, hate speech definitions etc. If we start to tolerate too much intolerance then society itself will degrade over time, look at Russia now. Systems that are built to encourage better solutions will last longer than others- free speech over tyranism, free markets over centrally planned economies. I don’t fully understand the practical takeaway from this paradox, I must be missing it- can you summarize?
I didn't agree with the Freedumb convoy as I saw it as an attack on our Canadian electoral system, but I was very dismayed to learn that a sitting government, which should be defending our Constitutional rights and institutions, would go even further then the convoy organizers and were very willing to attack the protections that are given to Canadians under that Constitution. It was like watching the old lesson my mother gave us a children play out, "two wrongs, don't make a right".
Some kind of group violence or property damage would seem to be the bare minimum. Committed by actual protesters - not fake arson by their opponents, or just made up lies from the CBC.
And there was zero group violence or property damage.
I thought the convoy was just a collection of whining fools...until it began to impact the economy, and more importantly, had the Americans calling us an "unreliable trading partner". At that point, I really didn't care what tools the government used to open the borders. Up to that point, I just thought it was a stupid idea that wrote the next elections attack ads against the Conservatives.
I suspect that if border crossings hadn't been blocked, they might still be in Ottawa, but once it affected the economy, the whole thing had to go.
The article and the comment shave given me a lot to think about which I appreciate and will ponder. Trudeau's constant failure to be transparent will create the usual challenges. Hopefully, the judge will have none of it.
I also found the king and queen sarcasm demeaned the quality of the message. It may have been clever wordplay; it didn't work for me. The entire 3 weeks were a complete failure of policing, and of government leadership at all levels. But with the Bauder MOU, any credibility they might have still had (the US had the same rules) was lost. from that point on, the entire "protest" was a punchline. If you don't bring a solution to a problem, you're just whining.
Thanks for validating my memory. I could swear that there were two different American politicians, taking advantage of the blocked trade and closing auto plants, to denigrate the whole trade relationship, call for all Canadian auto trade should be pulled back to the States.
Considering we were thinking at the time that the convoy was significantly American-funded, one got a conspiratorial feel about it just being an attack on Canada and our really vital trade.
But I can't find the articles mentioning them, naming the politicians. Was it that lightly covered, or am I doing the wrong google?
That was pretty much "casus belli" enough for most of us. After a few days of border blockade, the 29% of Canada that "supported the convoy" finally cracked, and only 25% "supported their methods". Then the American politicians gave us the "unreliable partner" treatment.
It's probably just a free gift that the long-gun weapons cache was publicized just six hours (I believe) before the Act was declared. The government probably can't prove that they were still hesitant the previous night, only declared because of the guns; likely there's paper to show that the decision was already made, and the guns were just frosting on the legal-argument cake.
But on Feb 14, what I remember is seeing the picture of all those guns, a few inches away from the other story of the Act being declared, and thinking "whew".
An excellent example of why people can't stand lawyers. This is just a classic legalese circle jerk word salad. Every one of these legal opinions are always about "slippery slopes" and "precedents", which may or may not ever materialize, but in the meantime plant enough doubt and hesitation to prevent anything common sensical or productive to get done in an expedient manner. Canadian society needs far less grey and a little more black and white - and in this particular case - right and wrong.
By definition, isn’t a precedent something that has happened before? A past interpretation of the law they use as a reference for a similar case to maintain fairness and consistency? Also is not the authors central argument that government search of private property without a warrant is 100% wrong? He’s arguing the law around unlawful surveillance should extend into this situation with the bank accounts and Emergency Act. That the intention of the law, and the past precedents should apply to make the current situation illegal. And if not, there is a slippery slope. Therefore the investigation and lawsuit should both turn out against the governments actions. Seems fairly black and white
The government is setting precedents and everyone who agrees with what they did and whatever they may do with the inquiry ought to think very carefully because these precedents will determine the actions of future governments; including the ones you may or may not be quite so sympathetic to.
If they continue with a narrative doesn't legitimately (legitimately should be emphasized) deal with the accusations of overreach, future governments will be able to use the same path to attack any political opposition.
If the inquiry turns into a whitewashing that hides inconvenient documents or truths due to 'cabinet confidence' or 'national security', that sets the path for any government, right or left, to follow in the future.
Be careful what you wish for.
If this is allowed to continue, Canada will be like China or North Korea. A communist country where the government can do whatever they like and the rule of law doesn’t exist.
And the wimpy comment about so called “name calling” when referring to Trudeau and Freeland as King and Queen is just a soppy objection by supporter of their kind of Liberals. I have supported the Liberals in the past but JT and his ilk are more like Comminists than the Liberals I could support.
Yes. This.
This article nicely captures not only the gross injustice, but the historic nature of the government's extreme overreach against fundamental rights.
Except, I think the overreach goes even a step further than suggested by this article. It isn't simply that it is a general warrant. From the article, "Rather than going to a justice and swearing an oath about why a particular person’s bank account needed to be searched for particular transactions relating to a particular illegal blockade ..." The implication here is that it was just the manner of approach, that there was an illegal blockade that the government could have frozen the same bank accounts had they followed the correct process. But I think that implication is also wrong.
The funds in question were from people supporting the Freedom Convoy 2022 which was only the protest in Ottawa. The crowdsourced funds, and the people involved, were only about the Ottawa protest. The Windsor, Ontario, and Alberta border blockades were neither the same people nor were they supported by the same crowdfunding mechanisms. Those could be termed illegal blockades.
As far as I'm aware, the Freedom Convoy 2022 Ottawa protest was never legally recognized as an "illegal blockade". Quite the opposite. In the February 7, 2022, court order regarding honking, the judge barred air horns and train horns (but not honking in general, as many journalists misinformed us) but also declared, "7. THIS COURT ORDERS that, provided the terms of this Order are complied with, the Defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest."
The order is here: https://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news-and-community/resources/Li-Interim-Order---CV-22-00088514-00CP.pdf
Further details of the complaint, order, and conditions are described here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/judge-court-orders-for-yourself?s=w
Not only did a judge view the protest as being legal -- if they stopped using air horns and train horns per the injunction -- despite the descriptions of the complaint, but the affidavits address even the idea of the protest being described as a "blockade". As noted by Daniel Bulford, one of the protest representatives, "I have been working closely with the Ottawa Police Service, the RCMP, and the Parliamentary Protective Service. I have been liaising with them since early last week."
As noted by even the Ottawa police at the time, and many times in interviews, that the protest leaders were consistently working with the police to keep emergency lanes open and out of residential areas, with the police even directly where the trucks can go. Repeatedly in the videos you can see people could travel throughout the downtown and easily get there, and go about their business. There was no blockade in Ottawa. Now, the police themselves did block off some streets on their own, even when there were no trucks there (e.g., Laurier bridge). But that was not the protestors.
Not a blockade. Not an illegal protest (by a judge's own statement).
Further, the article above notes that, "The emergency measures required financial institutions to search their records for customers suspected of “directly or indirectly” engaging in a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”
Had the government instead gone to a judge with the same position to get a warrant as suggested in the article, I think it would have -- or should have, failed. The Freedom Convoy 2022 was designed and declared to be a peaceful protest from the start, complete with warnings to watch out for agent provocateurs, to keep out of any government buildings, to be respectful of police and officials, and to avoid anything that could possibly be interpreted as hostile.
You can see it here in Tamara Lich's January 22 interview with Marc Patrone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc
Or look through her Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC
E.g., Jan. 23 video of her saying, "We are now starting to be attacked and smeared, and they're starting to say some pretty nasty things. ... So what I'm going to ask of you is to, if you are inclined, pray for them because they know not what they do. We are not here to spread hate. We are not here to create more division. We are here to stand up together and we are here to love one another, and forgive one another."
https://twitter.com/FredFredderson1/status/1485351714580574225
Or her Jan. 27 retweet from co-leader BJ Dichter, "Please join us in Ottawa for a peaceful and loving protest where we can rediscover freedom together."
Or also Jan. 27, "We are going to win this by showing love for one another. Be spiritual and be kind to all those around you."
And, retweet of Jan 27 post saying, "Everyone in Ottawa PLEASE film everything and everyone. If someone calls for violence GET THEM ON CAMERA. Shout “fed” at them and surround them. Ray Epps types will be in there trying to set people up. The media has shown that this is what they plan on framing the convoy as."
Or Jan. 28, ""Calm, peaceful and with love for everyone including those we disagree with."
and she calls out the expected agitators and agent provocateurs, and says "Keep calm and peaceful."
Or Jan. 28 retweet directed to all volunteer local organizers calling out warnings of agent provocateurs and reiterating to 1) not enter any government building or property, 2) treat all police officers with respect.
https://twitter.com/TheRealKeean/status/1487131569034866694
Or, from the above mentioned court complaint leading to the injunction, the affidavit from the United Way worker (detailed here again: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/judge-court-orders-for-yourself?s=w), stating:
"In these encounters, I have observed that all of the truckers I met have been, at all times, friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful. At no time have observed any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour nor have I at any time felt intimidated or unsafe. I state this as someone who was once the victim of assault on the streets of Ottawa in 2004 and who suffered PTSD as a result.
5. I have also observed that the truckers, and their supporters, are made up of the most diverse, inclusive and varied cross-section of Canadian demographics that I have ever experienced in my life. As examples, I saw a Sikh truck driver with his children, an Indigenous elder giving a blessing to the gathering, a black preacher performing a Sunday service, Canadians of all ethnicities and multiple families with their children.
6. I have observed truckers decorating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with flowers as well as guarding it. I also observed an encampment beside the Terry Fox Memorial as a means of watching watch over it. At no point have I ever seen violent or threatening behaviour.
...
9. What I have observed is not in accord with what I have seen in the media or what I have experienced directly either with the truckers, their supporters or the gathering of people on Parliament Hill. The media appears to be framing the convoy and the events around their presence in Ottawa in the most unfavourable, erroneous and distorted manner possible."
Given all of this information, what supporter or donator to the protest could possibly think of the protest as a “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.”?
The protest was designed from beginning to end, and as seen on hundreds of hours of video, and as attested to in court affidavits, as a peaceful and inclusive protest actively trying to suppress any attempts at breaches of the peace.
So, in summary:
1. Yes, to the main thesis of the article, the warrantless search and seizure is the biggest issue.
2. But, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, it should have failed anyway because it was not an "illegal blockade" but a legal protest, as even a judge certified.
3. And, had the government gone the way suggested in the article, and kept the justifications based on "reasonably expected" breach of the peace, it also should have failed because the protest was always designed from beginning to end to be peaceful and respectful, notwithstanding the misinformation of politicians and journalists.
[Edit: Notably, from the fact that the government could have gone to a court to get such warrants and didn't, one can reasonably infer that they know they'd lose because of items 2 and 3 here. The reasonable inference is that the use of the Emergencies Act was not a mere overstep, but recognized as the only means by which they could shut down the protest and maintain the false narratives.
They also could have sent an envoy to discuss with protestors, as they did with the 2020 (illegal) railway blockade and BLM protests, but didn't. It could have saved the $36M in police costs, the run on the banks, and the international embarrassment of authoritarian overreach.
Knowing that the government has plenty of legal experts, negotiators, and advisors, it is a reasonable inference that these were all intentionally avoided to maintain the defamatory narrative the government and corporate media created when it started. Losing in court or to be seen negotiating with "those people" with "unacceptable views" would reveal the man behind the curtain and admitting that they had mischaracterized the protests and protestors would have been a big hit to the "us vs them" divisive politics driving campaigns and policy efforts.
Or, so it is reasonable to infer. Alternative explanations could be that they are just police-state authoritarians who don't care about the rule of law, or that they are politically and legally inept. Extreme incompetence, dictatorial maleficence, or tribalistic corruption seem the only options here that I can see. If there's another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.]
Exactly. The clear purpose of everything the government did was to maintain control of the narrative, regardless of citizens' rights. If they needed to be violated in order to maintain information control, the only question for the government was how to do it.
The article provide interesting information and I was enjoying the perspective until the author referenced Trudeau and Freeland with the titles of King and Queen. I do not respect name calling and therefore struggled to finish reading the article with curiosity and an open mind.
It’s possible the Kind and Queen reference wasn’t as much a standalone insult as it was a reference to the historical reference in the article. He’s making a relationship between the foundation of the law (against the monarch coming into your house) and government leaders coming into your bank account. He’s making the case that if MPs use their power to investigate private property without permission from a judge, they are acting in the same vein as a King and Queen.
Possibly but as he didn't indicate that, I think it was an unprofessional insult and detracted from the article.
And for the record, I did not take it personally, I found it jarring and distracting.
You are trying too hard. The King/Queen dis discredited an otherwise good article.
It’s taking a comment “personally” by someone who goes for the kind of liberalism that JT and Freeland have invented. Just ask Dan McTague - a Liberal MP for 18 years who resigned over this kind of “liberalism” what he thinks of JT!
Yes it seems a defensive comment against a slight against someone held to be perfect. It should be a yellow flag for anyone if they can’t admit the person they are following has faults
You guys will go to any lengths, as has been proven regularly, to never miss an insult no matter how lame.
And should anyone disagree with that, they must be Liberals and blindly follow anything and everything the Liberal Party puts out.
Do you lot have any idea how boring that is? You can't settle on a Party Leader since Harper abandoned you but you can wallow in disjointed, disconnected, group despair over the other guys. Boring!
No yellow flags, just lots of big *uck Trudeau flags because you lot are all so literate. It's enough to make people not vote Con.
Not outraged, simply commenting.
Fair!
Yes, that was much my reaction as well. And no, I wasn't 'outraged' but I thought it a bit of unnecessary sarcasm that damaged an otherwise thoughtful argument.
You should try being a trucker only to find out you're misogynistic, racist, a White Supremist, etc and as a result you find yourself scrambling to pay your rent and bills three months in advance because it seems your bank account may be frozen for the $100 LEGAL donation you made...
No sympathy. If the "truckers" can afford to drive across Canada, to Ottawa, in February, hoping to feed off of a lot of $100 donations rather than work, that's on them. Arriving in Ottawa, no clear plan, no clear leaders, just big honking trucks blocking everyone, demanding to speak to JT, demanding that the GG take over and other silly ass ideas. No one, least of all Pat King or Tamara Lich or the crypto guy, thought it would last as long as it did. But it did and now everyone involved will have to pay for their bad decisions. Where did the bulk of that $1mil Tamara received go?
If you are not a "misogynistic, racist, a White Supremist, etc", ignore it. Tho it sounds like you are fishing.
And were you never taught, as a child, that two wrongs do not make a right? If you want to call JT names, email or write him directly. Spare us the boring repetition.
Oh, and read the fine print on the contract you signed with your bank.
I’m sorry that has been your experience. And I guess that is my point, you have been labeled and it has real consequences. The reasons behind your actions are distorted by these labels. This applies to all sides.
I wasn't looking for sympathy. It's not needed. I was pointing out that while you were put off by the use of the word king, it is Trudeau himself who has thrown out some of the worst names and taken the worst action. So if Trudeau or his supporters don't want to hear him called king, then perhaps they shouldn't be throwing out those much more severe slurs themselves.
Considering the Trudeau Liberals are now pushing through Bill C 5 reducing mandatory sentences for violent crimes with a weapon, it proves very openly that the invocation of the Emergency Act was politically motivated. You can rob a store with a gun and have house arrest under their new idea of law enforcement and punishment. To even consider peacefully protesting against their vaccine mandates ( the same my body, my choice, they are all in a lather about saving for abortions) and they will financially, through unjust bail hearings, keep you locked in side, destroy and remove you from any chance of regaining control of your own life. The hypocrisy and evil that resides behind their actions must never be tolerated in any democratic society. It’s the Justin Trudeau Liberals and the Jagmeet Singh NDP that need to be financially and legally held responsible for their politically motivated actions. They should be removed and never allowed to participate in Canadian society. The same punishment they have placed on the unvaccinated.
Pregnancy isn't contagious. Thus, the "my body, my choice" argument does not apply here.
The chance of a human (although not necessarily a person) dying as the result of an abortion is 100%. Since the vaccines don't reduce transmission, the chance of a human dying as the result of someone else not getting vaccinated is exactly zero.
And, even if it were greater than zero, that wouldn't justify mandatory vaccination. Every time you get behind the wheel of your car, you create a non-zero chance of killing someone. And yet you are allowed to drive - because the chance is small. And clearly one's right to drive is vastly less consequential than one's right to refuse medical treatment.
Currently, that is correct. At previous times during this pandemic, people died because they couldn't get medical services because the hospitals were clogged with COVID patients. Once the vaccines arrived, they punched way about their percentage of the population in taking up ICU spaces. Even people in car accidents arriving at ER's got sent to other places, and let's not ignore Saskatchewan.
Getting pregnant didn't risk access to healthcare for other people. Getting COVID and ending up in the ICU because you weren't smart enough to get vaccinated did.
Again, there was no mandatory vaccination. Businesses did it because they're; required to provide the safest possible workplaces, or risk being sued. Governments did it around the world on the advice of their health experts. The way it should be.
If governments punish you for not being vaccinated (eg by banning you from travel), then vaccination is mandatory. Remember you agreed that keeping unvaxxed people off flights doesn't protect others in the flight - because the shots don't reduce transmission.
Why? You made a choice, you suffer the consequences. That's how the rules work. Your right to travel is not protected by anything as we covered yesterday. That also ignores how many countries there are where vaccinations are required to visit. I don't have a problem with it. You'll have your chance to change the government in 3 years or less.
Charter section 6(1): "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."
Pregnancy is far easier to prevent as is abortion. Using the proper protections can stop all abortions from having to occur. The virus spreads whether you are vaccinated or not as can you catch it, vaccinated or not. https://www.abbynews.com/news/most-new-b-c-covid-19-infections-now-in-fully-vaccinated-people/
True enough, yet why are many of these same states making birth control difficult to access?
Is an article that ignores cases per 100000 and is 4 months old really relevant? Omicron has definitely changed the game, but hospitalizations are the number that matters. Your article suggests vaccines are a huge success.
I don’t disagree that vaccines stopped many people from dying and provided a purpose. I just believe that the choice in getting a vaccine is a personal one just as is an abortion. I am one hundred percent for bodily autonomy on and for all medical decisions. No one should be forced into any procedure nor should they be punished if they chose otherwise. All decisions in life bare consequences to which we should be made aware of but each must have the right to chose for themselves what is done to their body.
Having an abortion affects one person. Choosing not to get vaccinated can impact several. That's where I see the difference. If that person ends up taking up a hospital or ICU space, as they have done at a rate far above their percentage of the population, the decision not to get vaccinated can affect access to healthcare in the form of a routine surgery being cancelled. Depending on how long you're in, it could affect several. Yes, there will be vaccinated people in the ICU as well...but at least, they made the effort. And for the last time, no one forced you to get vaccinated.
Tell me you don't honestly believe that! If that was true there would be no reason to protect abortion rights at all (or contraception). It would simply be a non-topic along the lines of "New research shows that humans breathe air".
You know the reason most new covid cases are in fully vaccinated people is that most Canadians have been vaccinated. The sub-headline in that Abbotsford News article reads, "Protection against severe illness still shown in statistics". And the article you are touting as your proof is from January 10th. You could have gone to the BCCDC if you were so interested in BC stats. They would give you up-to-date information.
Lazy ML, just lazy.
The article is saying the unvaccinated are no threat to the vaccinated. I have found further information on people vaccinated with three or four doses are getting the virus over those who are unvaccinated. Another fact, natural immunity is stronger than the vaccine! Another fact, many of those with three or four doses are dying as well or being hospitalized. Doctor last time told my 85 year old relative he did not feel competent in telling her to get a fourth booster. He could not be certain if it would aid her, so allowed her to make that choice on her own. She decided to get the fourth dose and then tested positive for the virus and was sick. She still is. The fact is the vaccine drops the white counts in those vaccinated, for two weeks or in some cases longer, leaving the recipient of these vaccines, open to high infection rates. Not only from COVID but any virus or sickness for some period of time. It is the reason they do not consider them validly vaccinated until two weeks have passed. It is not I who is being lazy, so please refrain from spreading more misinformation.
Yes I do believe prevention is easier than abortion. We all know what causes and what prevents pregnancy. After all they are teaching children about this in grade school so it’s no longer unknown or caused by ignorance. That makes it preventable. It’s called, as hard as this is for you to believe, common sense. For those lacking such they can get an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Many childless parents would love to have children.
LOL that explanation is the worst argument for common sense that I ever read.
Sorry ML, you've confused me again. What does Bill C-5 have to do with the EA and how is it politically motivated? You might as well say when Skippy and JT get up in the morning and brush their teeth they are politically motivated. The
Have you read the bill?
Robbery with firearm:
Paragraph 344(1)(a): MMP of 5 years (first offence) and 7 years (subsequent offences) - where firearm is restricted or prohibited or if any firearm is used and the offence is committed in connection with a criminal organization.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/12/mandatory-minimum-penalties-to-be-repealed.html
Who had an unjust bail hearing?
The "truckers" and abortion rights have absolutely nothing in common.
Peaceful? Wrong.
Singh and Trudeau and Polievre and all of them in the House and Senate are politicians. Every single one of them. What did Singh do that peed you off?
What punishments?
In less than 4 years (maybe a lot less) you can cast your ballot and have an entirely new PM to complain about.
Read the definition of “repealed” sir. That would be my first suggestion. The connection to the truckers treatment is over reach and abortion law is non existent in Canada. With abortion the victim loses their life with no appeal and the same went for the truckers bail hearings which they were subjected to under martial law with no rebuke. Some remained in custody for weeks on bail hearings so were found guilty and held in custody along with extreme restrictions due to political interference in our courts with out going to trial. I will stand by that. The judge was partial as he was a past Liberal MP which in itself speaks volumes. As was the mayor of Ottawa!! With a charge of mischief, that has yet to be proven in a court of law, the actions taken were unprecedented and not even acceptable under any code of law in our Justice system. Period. They actually brought Tamara into the courtroom with shackles on her arms and legs for a mischief charge. So please the excess used by government , courts, where truth was completely absent, causing the complete destruction of our Justice system, charter of rights and freedoms, and our Constitution.
The convoy followed the requests of the injunction and horn blowing they stopped. That’s following the law and they did as they were asked in moving vehicles from residential areas and no streets were blocked to any traffic. Emergency vehicles and others had access at all times.
You need to fall victim to the perpetrators and suffer the consequences of the Justice system and see for yourself that the victim of these crimes are completely dismissed and unimportant. They get no hearing or any thought, as they allow the criminals back out on the streets to repeat the crimes in a circular pattern that never ends. That’s their Justice. You get to be the victim over and over again so just who suffers the consequences of so called Justice! We are suppose to be all equal under the law but no longer. The victims are the ones held in prison for life and these government pigs at the taxpayer trough, who are surrounded by security, are the ones perpetrating the crimes against humanity!
Jagmeet backed Trudeau up to put in the emergencies act that was completely out of line. They were outright lying to Canadians about the convoy. They had zero to do with arson and many of those things that were not proven but pure rumour and misinformation. Just as was the idea it was foreign funded. They pulled a page out of the Democrat book and suggested it was An insurrection. It was nothing of the kind and only those who believe lies and misinformation would say such a thing. This Liberal Government of Canada is corrupt to its core and it has destroyed any faith in the Canadian justice system, the police, the banking system along with any institutions under their control. Jagmeet still backs Trudeau’s corruption and is aiding him to continue his disgraceful, unconstitutional and pathetic leadership.
Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was meant to protect us from people like Justin Trudeau.
I agree with your arguments. Let's hope that transparency prevails. I am, however, less enchanted by your snotty references to the King and Queen. Whatever you may think, they do deserve some respect for the positions they hold. Your comments are unbecoming of a future attorney, who is no doubt trying to impress his peers, but whom I would not be inclined to hire. As an aspiring attorney your opinions should be kept private and more importantly not shared in a public forum. That's good journalism! Keep it civil!
That's an interesting take. I did not see it that way. The title of King and Queen are not insults, but are themselves respected titles. Queen Elizabeth is well-respected and her title is honourable.
I read the usage here as a short-hand reference to the types of powers that monarchs have (or had) compared to democratically elected officials. The shorthand here is saying that Trudeau and Freeland were not being respectful of their positions but were instead assuming undemocratic and unconstitutional powers that are of the kind previously used by monarchs and that led to the very development of modern constitutional democracies in order to stop from happening.
Insults are usually comparisons with lower-level conditions, such as indicating lower intelligence or capacity, not a comparison with a higher level of authority and respect. It seems quite civil, especially by way of comparison with contemporary politicians and journalists calling people all sorts of names -- racist, misogynist, transphobic, white supremacist, holding "unacceptable views", and referring to "those people" being a threat to our children. Those are insults, and demagoguery.
As to attorneys keeping their opinions private, I almost at a loss for words. Attorneys and law professors regularly espouse their personal views publicly, often about specific cases, and certainly giving legal opinions including in the press. There's nothing unprofessional about that. Some even have careers built on that such as human rights lawyers and organizations like the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, both whom have podcasts / Youtube channels.
In fact, there are many popular Youtube channels that are praticing lawyers. Alan Dershowitz has the Dershow and is constantly espousing his opinions. Nate the Lawyer, Rekieta Law, Legal Byets, Legal Mindset, Hoeg Law, Runkle of the Bailey, Viva and Barnes.
Indeed it comes with some risk that potential clients may chose their lawyers based on the content of those legal opinions, but that is probably only an issue if there were lawyers sitting around with no work to do as a result of clients not choosing to work with them. I'm quite sure that we're not in that set of circumstances.
But, you are certainly free to chose your own lawyer on whatever basis you like. I just don't think most people would use that approach, and I don't think the author here has anything to worry about in that respect.
To each their own.
Dershowitz was once a respected constitutional/criminal lawyer. Now he is a paid entertainer similar to Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino and Rudy Giuliani. More money in show biz apparently and you can say anything. Just because he was a lawyer does not mean anyone should pay attention to his "opinions".
The Emergency Act replaced the war measures act , which gave the state more authority. This act was supposed to have built in save guards such as independent review. Its use was limited to real emergencies. The question is whether or not it was justified in this case. No it was not. Laws were in place but not enforced which allowed that stupidity to go on. The implementation of the law was purely a political move. However it was our elected representatives that voted for it and it is the law of the land. So it can be used.
Is the inquiry even going to get into the topic of whether the donations were basically a scam? It's hardly an unlikely chance: one American funding-call after another has turned out to be sliding a healthy payday over to the organizers, just change for the actual Cause. Steve Bannon had already been arrested for a Wall funding scam when Trump pardoned him.
I never heard more about the Convoy supporter who blew his whole savings, some tens of thousands, and only got runaround when he looked to the organizers for compensation.
How much was actually contributed, but not frozen, and never returned. How much was spent on legitimate Convoy expenses? Were records kept? Nobody ever seemed to ask why food and gas for a few thousand people would cost so many millions.
It could be that the freezing actually protected gullible Convoy contributors more than it helped anybody else.
The Paradox of Tolerance
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of
tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to
those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to
defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and
tolerance with them.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance,
the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Karl Popper
Isn’t the remedy to this some sort of nature order argument? We all agree that some intolerance is bad- murder is wrong, speeding kills, hate speech definitions etc. If we start to tolerate too much intolerance then society itself will degrade over time, look at Russia now. Systems that are built to encourage better solutions will last longer than others- free speech over tyranism, free markets over centrally planned economies. I don’t fully understand the practical takeaway from this paradox, I must be missing it- can you summarize?
I won’t summarize as it’s basically done in state,ent. But here is a deeper explanation
https://academy4sc.org/video/paradox-of-tolerance-to-tolerate-or-not-to-tolerate/
I didn't agree with the Freedumb convoy as I saw it as an attack on our Canadian electoral system, but I was very dismayed to learn that a sitting government, which should be defending our Constitutional rights and institutions, would go even further then the convoy organizers and were very willing to attack the protections that are given to Canadians under that Constitution. It was like watching the old lesson my mother gave us a children play out, "two wrongs, don't make a right".
Thanks for explaining this and giving the historical background to the law.
On the other hand, JT's use of the riot act was a good deal more refined than that of his father.
In fairness, killing a cabinet minister and kidnapping a foreign diplomat is a lot more aggressive than honking a horn.
You are still not paying attention. Much more was going on than honking. Must the gov wait until there is murder and kidnapping before taking action?
Some kind of group violence or property damage would seem to be the bare minimum. Committed by actual protesters - not fake arson by their opponents, or just made up lies from the CBC.
And there was zero group violence or property damage.
Your arguments are cogent and deserve thoughtful consideration, and thank you for the history, but one could do without the hyperbolic language.
I thought the convoy was just a collection of whining fools...until it began to impact the economy, and more importantly, had the Americans calling us an "unreliable trading partner". At that point, I really didn't care what tools the government used to open the borders. Up to that point, I just thought it was a stupid idea that wrote the next elections attack ads against the Conservatives.
I suspect that if border crossings hadn't been blocked, they might still be in Ottawa, but once it affected the economy, the whole thing had to go.
The article and the comment shave given me a lot to think about which I appreciate and will ponder. Trudeau's constant failure to be transparent will create the usual challenges. Hopefully, the judge will have none of it.
I also found the king and queen sarcasm demeaned the quality of the message. It may have been clever wordplay; it didn't work for me. The entire 3 weeks were a complete failure of policing, and of government leadership at all levels. But with the Bauder MOU, any credibility they might have still had (the US had the same rules) was lost. from that point on, the entire "protest" was a punchline. If you don't bring a solution to a problem, you're just whining.
Thanks for validating my memory. I could swear that there were two different American politicians, taking advantage of the blocked trade and closing auto plants, to denigrate the whole trade relationship, call for all Canadian auto trade should be pulled back to the States.
Considering we were thinking at the time that the convoy was significantly American-funded, one got a conspiratorial feel about it just being an attack on Canada and our really vital trade.
But I can't find the articles mentioning them, naming the politicians. Was it that lightly covered, or am I doing the wrong google?
IIRC, it was a Congresswoman from Michigan who first said it. The Governor of Michigan said it too.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-u-s-bridge-blockade-economy-1.6351762
https://thewire.in/world/with-canadas-truckers-standoff-a-global-journey-of-freedom-populism-has-just-begun
Many thanks.
That was pretty much "casus belli" enough for most of us. After a few days of border blockade, the 29% of Canada that "supported the convoy" finally cracked, and only 25% "supported their methods". Then the American politicians gave us the "unreliable partner" treatment.
It's probably just a free gift that the long-gun weapons cache was publicized just six hours (I believe) before the Act was declared. The government probably can't prove that they were still hesitant the previous night, only declared because of the guns; likely there's paper to show that the decision was already made, and the guns were just frosting on the legal-argument cake.
But on Feb 14, what I remember is seeing the picture of all those guns, a few inches away from the other story of the Act being declared, and thinking "whew".
An excellent example of why people can't stand lawyers. This is just a classic legalese circle jerk word salad. Every one of these legal opinions are always about "slippery slopes" and "precedents", which may or may not ever materialize, but in the meantime plant enough doubt and hesitation to prevent anything common sensical or productive to get done in an expedient manner. Canadian society needs far less grey and a little more black and white - and in this particular case - right and wrong.
By definition, isn’t a precedent something that has happened before? A past interpretation of the law they use as a reference for a similar case to maintain fairness and consistency? Also is not the authors central argument that government search of private property without a warrant is 100% wrong? He’s arguing the law around unlawful surveillance should extend into this situation with the bank accounts and Emergency Act. That the intention of the law, and the past precedents should apply to make the current situation illegal. And if not, there is a slippery slope. Therefore the investigation and lawsuit should both turn out against the governments actions. Seems fairly black and white
You would definitely love Putin's Russia in that case. It's black and white there, what Putin likes is how it goes, what he doesn't like disappears.
You’ve just validated my point….
Many Canadians have moved here from countries where only the foolish and naive give the sitting government the benefit of the doubt.
Nope, even your tone tells me you don’t get it! And you weren’t impacted by the actions, nor the complicity of the police prior to the action.