Just looking at the Gaza protesters blocking traffic and harassing Canadian jews in their own neighborhoods. Jewish business has been targeted. Individuals harassed and synagogues fire bombed versus horns honking in downtown Ottawa. So, harassment of jews is peaceful assembly along with general antisemitism, but trucker protests are the real danger.
It's an across-the-board failure. I still believe anyone protesting what is happening in Gaza, anywhere but in front of Israel's embassy, is an idiot. What they're doing is nothing more than harrassment and it should be treated that way.
Just so we're clear on this, I'd like to see all of those self-absorbed protesters kicked off the streets and preventing from blockading ports/capitals/bridges/whatever. My line is protesters don't get to blockade streets, period. The truckers and the Coastal Gas Link protesters were cleared out as they should've been, but far too late. The Gaza protesters should receive similar treatment. A lot of the whining about the trucker protest is akin to being angry about getting pulled over for a speeding ticket even though other cars are speeding past while the officer is writing the ticket.
Blocking streets is illegal under the Criminal Code (well, highways, and many streets meet the definition).
Speaking as a defense lawyer, I don't like law enforcement not enforcing the law - it's unfair to everyone, including my clients. Consistency is important. Possibly the most important principle the justice system has.
The Ottawa convoy was causing millions in damages to the local economy. Also, millions of Canadians were supporting the convoy even knowing full well this damage that was being caused by it, whereas only a fringe minority would support any given episode of harassment against Jews.
Economic damage caused by a protest is a debate about the limits of free assembly; harassment against Jews is a debate about the fundamental right to exist without fear. You know that, right?
Conflating the two suggests that if enough people support a movement, the collateral damage or the behavior of its participants is excused. In reality, the popularity of a movement doesn't grant it immunity from criticism regarding its tactics or the extremist elements that may attach themselves to it.
Oh I am not saying that the convoy is excused by the fact of its mainstream support, nor am I conflating the two. When you said in your post "but trucker protests are the real danger", it seemed to me like you were hinting that there is some kind of double-standard being practiced in Canada in prejudice against the Ottawa occupiers and in favour of persons who harass Jews.
My simple point is that many conservatives in this country have a soft spot for protests that cause economic damages when it is done as an excuse to advance political goals that they agree with. And that's why the convoy was a special cause of polarization in a way that episodes of harassment of Jews are not; in the latter case, there's nothing that mainstream ordinary citizens are in disagreement about; the consensus is that Jew harassment is wrong.
The double-standard is in favour of the Ottawa occupiers, who got special support from the Conservative Party for their law-breaking, because ostensibly causing millions in local damages to a city is okay just as long as you are pursuing an appropriately anti-Liberal cause.
There is a double standard, clearly. Anyone who enjoys democracy might not like the idea of a trucker protest being a protest but that's how she goes and that's why the courts were right to spank the government Federal court upheld the decision that protests were not a national security threat.
Not being a "national security threat" is quite a low bar to meet! As Dehaas notes above, the Ottawa occupation was still a lawless disgrace regardless of some unnecessary government responses to it. But what is most disgraceful of all was the support of the Conservatives for it. Causing millions in damages to a city is okay, just as long as your "protest" advances a cause contrary to the Liberals' agenda. If you were to cause millions in damages advancing a cause that the Conservatives don't like though, then you can count on them cracking down hard upon you.
A quick list of things the Freedom Convoy protestors did that are illegal under the Criminal Code: blocked a highway, mischief under 5000, mischief over 5000, probably assault (in its "accosting people while armed" form), cause disturbance. Oh, and it probably could have been declared a riot at least some of the time and dispersed using those powers.
The idea that the police couldn't do anything is silly, and was silly at the time.
It's called antisemitism and not 'jew harassment'. The non-enforcement of existing hate laws was/is prevalent at Gaza protests that have been going on for more than two years. It's sad that downtown Ottawa was inconvenienced but that's democracy baby.
Antisemitism is a weasel word for Jew-hatred. "Liberals", NDP, Greens, various leftists and wokeys are very much openly OK with Jew-hatred and are practicing it, while openly supporting sadistic Islamist murderers.
Expecting the law not to be enforced is not part of democracy. The courts deemed the Emergencies Act to be illegal, but plenty of Conservatives still want Chris Barber and Tamara Lich to be pardoned and exempt from the consequences of their law-breaking, which they are still guilty of regardless.
The Line has made this point many times. There are already laws in existence to prevent the bad outcomes here. We just didn’t enforce them, either because of incompetence, unclear division of responsibility between municipal/provincial/federal governments, paralysis on the “comms”, or political direction to the police to stand down.
(That last one is particularly galling to me; we set a bad precedent on the violent armed attack on Coastal GasLink and the church-burnings by the Trudeau government quietly ordering the RCMP to not investigate or arrest anyone.)
We don’t need new laws, we need the will to enforce the ones we have.
The LPC government. Everyone who supported the legislation, not just Mr. Trudeau, should be held responsible. Amazing how little publicity and commentary has followed the ruling.
The ruling basically found that the Emergencies Act wasn’t needed because all of them could have (and should have) been arrested under existing laws.
Don’t take this ruling to mean that the occupation of downtown Ottawa was legal. It appears that both the occupation itself, and the use of the Emergencies Act, were illegal.
I have written in this space, on this topic before, so I will not repeat myself. Save to note again: the law of nuisance trespass and the issuance of court injunctions is relatively similar in all of the provinces. Just like it is in respect of illegal behaviour in connection with labour disputes. What is different is the willingness of the police to enforce the law; which is why ILLEGAL campus occupations were gone in Alberta in a couple of days and lasted weeks in Ontario, Quebec and BC, were the willingness to enforce the law - which is to say protect the property and civil rights of ordinary citizens - was missing. Just as, in Ontario, aboriginal protesters illegally blocked a railway in Ontario for weeks and terrorized citizens in Caledonia and police let them get away with it.
Let me add this. As I see it: the origin of this problem is NOT any change in the statute laws or the common law. Rather, there has been a change in the “attitude” to enforcement, following the police response to the Ipperwash occupation and the death of aboriginal protester Dudley George - who was killed by a police bullet. (The officer in question was convicted of criminal negligence causing death). Influenced by the views of former Judge Sidney Linden, who conducted a public enquiry into the Ipperwash situation.
It was those unhappy events that fueled the idea that the “peacefulness” of the protest is more important than the “unlawfulness” of it; and further that that politicians should never ever influence police tactical decisions. (Because, in that case, Premier Mike Harris had apparently demanded that the occupied park be cleared by the OPP; and it was alleged that the OPP had felt bound to follow his “instructions”).
And of course there is something to be said for those concerns.
For as anyone who has dealt with protests will know: they pose tricky judgement calls, and a balancing of potentially competing “rights” and “interests”. To protest for those so inclined; and to remain uninvolved and free to go about your business, for those who are uninterested.
Similarly, we want police to exercise balanced and independent judgement; and politicians should not be mixed up in law enforcement decisions. “Politicizing” the law would be a bad thing.
So there is a balance to be struck.
The problem is this: what happens if protesters are unlawfully interfering with the legal interests of ordinary citizens and the police are unwilling or unable to address the situation? What can the citizens affected by the illegal behavior, actually do about it, to make it stop, or to obtain redress?
Because that is an issue that is still unresolved and the subject of debate.
For example: will the businesses whose commerce was blocked by the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge get compensation for the economic damage that they suffered? What about the Gay Pride marchers in Toronto, whose parade was interrupted or the Italian Community dinner guests whose dinner was cancelled or the universities whose operations were interfered? And so on. Because one thing is clear: a purported “law” without a remedy is written on water. And the absence of a legal remedy is an invitation to “self help”.
It's funny how absolutely no one ever remembers the summer of "OCCUPY" way back in 2011, which took up arbitrary residence in front of Parliament for MONTHS.
They didn't have big rigs along for the ride, but they were a large, rather unruly crowd, and they "occupied" downtown Ottawa with their tent city just as surely as the Convoy did, with remarkably few consequences.
We know that a ton of Ottawa residents were genuinely angered by the 2022 convoy, probably to the point of it affecting their votes. Ottawa used to be a city where multiple Conservatives could get elected, now they have been driven out of every riding there except only Carleton, only provincially.
What is the evidence of how widespread the anger was during the 2011 Occupy protest? At any rate, a tent city would not be a cause of as much noise pollution.
The Convoy remains the largest gathering of selfish imbeciles in Canadian history to date. It did not justify the Emergencies Act, as the moment the US called us an unreliable trading partner (the irony), Doug leapt into action and suddenly, opening the border was more important than party politics. It was all over before the Act was invoked.
Support of it is a big part of why Pierre lost his riding.....and will never be PM.
It was always obvious that invoking the Emergencies Act was mostly cover for a Liberal government that was embarrassed by their own stunned paralysis in the face of the protest and their incompetent failure to respond. Nothing that was done to actually clear out the protester required the Emergencies Act and could've been done far earlier; the fact that the Act was invoked unnecessarily does nothing to invalidate the effort to clear out the protesters.
What's depressing about all of this is that governments are missing an opportunity to articulate a new standard for protesters of all stripes: engage in any blockade of public transportation networks or infrastructure, and you will consistently and rapidly be arrested and removed from the area. Want to mass on Parliament Hill, outside Queen's Park, or at the Vancouver Art Gallery? Knock your socks off. Set foot on a public street and disrupt traffic? Now you've broken the law and will pay the consequences.
Heck, such an approach can actually increase the value of their protest: the moral power of civil disobedience in the past was the willingness of protesters to face the consequences of violating unjust laws or defying unjust systems. Otherwise, it's basically a politically-charged 5K fun walk.
Nothing that was done to actually clear out the protester required the Emergencies Act and could've been done far earlier; the fact that the Act was invoked unnecessarily does nothing to invalidate the effort to clear out the protesters.
Despite having been vaxed I was sympathetic to the grievance triggering the trucker's protest. Regardless of one's take on that though, I think it was fair to give them that first weekend in Ottawa. But by the first Sunday at the latest they should have been cleared out. And I have zero sympathy for anybody whinging about the manner in which they ultimately were cleared out (including the presence of police on horseback "stomping on protesters"). Plenty of advance warning was given and this unlawful conduct had gone on FAR too long - they needed to GTFO and forcefully removed if they refused. That said, invoking the Emergencies Act was a shameful act of authoritarianism that absolutely dwarfs any other wrongdoing associated with the convoy.
And while on the subject, a few words about Carney's masquerading as a civil libertarian last week. On Thursday he doubled down on the previous Tuesday’s gobsmacking attempt to associate himself with Vaclav Havel, stating: "In a time of rising populism and ethnic nationalism, Canada can show how diversity is a strength, not a weakness. In a time of democratic decline, we can show how rights can be protected and equal freedoms endure.” Well, Mr. C, your predecessor’s government did quite the job of showing how rights can be protected and equal freedoms can endure when it invoked the Emergencies Act - egged on by you openly and enthusiastically advocating for that very outcome, let’s not forget.
And to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) he has still not said a word about the Federal Court of Appeal decision completely eviscerating the government. Until he addresses that decision, acknowledges the government’s gross over-reach, apologizes for it (both in his capacity as current PM and his personal capacity for his insane op-ed) and commits to actually protecting rights and freedoms rather than advocating for their evisceration, he has zero credibility in speaking out on that subject. Frankly, his comments on authoritarianism last week are akin to Tony Soprano speaking out against loansharking.
In February 2022 Carney advocated for cracking down on the Convoy and he argued for declaring a "state of emergency". He did, however, actually call for invoking the Emergencies Act. As such, his his record on the file actually holds up well even in light of the Court ruling.
Notwithstanding the ruling, I would disagree that "invoking the Emergencies Act was a shameful act of authoritarianism that absolutely dwarfs any other wrongdoing associated with the convoy". Whether or not it was strictly necessary, it was certainly time-limited, done only after lengthy and public deliberation, and done as a result of public pressure. This was not a government that was being reckless in expanding its powers.
I disagree that his record holds up well. Until such time as he acknowledges the FCA ruling and concedes the government was wrong his record is atrocious.
"Whether or not it was strictly necessary". This type of waffling, politician/lawyer language is only appropriate when discussing something that was a close call. The FCA could not have been clearer - this was not a close call in the slightest.
'it was certainly time-limited". I may be wrong but my recollection is that the main reason it was "time-limited" is because the Senate was stepping up to the plate and threatening to stop it dead in its tracks so no credit for that. But even if it were entirely due to cabinet acting of their own volition, the fact it was "time-limited" is irrelevant. This was gross over-reach as the FCA made clear and the fact it was a few days rather than a few months is not something that is a point in their favour.
"done only after lengthy and public deliberation, and done as a result of public pressure." I take issue with "lengthy and public deliberation" but even conceding that point, so what? The fact huge swaths of the population may be supportive of authoritarian measures is no reason to kowtow to them. In fact, it is during times like these that allegedly cooler heads in Cabinet should resist authoritarian measures. Every person in that cabinet proved themselves unfit for governing.
"This was not a government that was being reckless in expanding its powers." We will have to agree to strongly disagree and not for the first time on this file.
A lot of people are memory-holing the fact that there was an entire public inquiry that investigated this whole affair and which gave its public approval to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Of course, the outcome of that inquiry was not legally binding, and the courts exercised their full authority to simply ignore it. But we have a picture here of a government that probably did not consult closely enough with its lawyers but which which otherwise tried to needle the thread of a difficult situation.
You specifically said that the government's behaviour was worse than that of the convoy. That seems to imply that doing something that was of ambiguous legality but then ruled as illegal after the fact is as capricious as doing something that you know to be illegal (the downtown blockade), creating a culture of lawlessness among a large group of people, and explicitly inviting society to cheer on and praise you. I could see the Trudeau government's behaviour as being worse if they had been visibly chest-beating in their enthusiasm on the crackdown and if the Liberal Party was being jubilantly partisan about it, but this was one of the rarer instances of the government behaving itself maturely. Trudeau's popularity would not have plummeted if he looked as mature for the rest of his time in office as he did then.
The reason I say the government's behaviour was worse than that of the convoy is based on the principle of proportionality. It's the same reason I would not advocate the death penalty for jaywalkers. Suspending Charter rights because a bunch of non-violent people blockaded streets in downtown Ottawa for a few weeks (making the authorities look as effective as the Keystone Cops in the process) while not actually posing any threat to the security of the Country was an absolute travesty. Recall, I take no issue with how the police acted once they finally got around to breaking it up.
As for the Liberals' conduct surrounding the invocation of the Act I recall Freeland chortling about it at the press conference announcing the invocation. That has no bearing on the legality of the invocation, of course; I offer it merely in response to your claim that they were not jubilantly partisan about it.
I do not agree that the Court ruling proves that the invocation was egregiously disproportionate. The Charter has always been subject to "reasonable" limitations, and the difference between reasonable and unreasonable is often a fine line that the courts are forced to reduce to a binary question. The invocation did not suspend all Charter rights everywhere, but suspended them in a particular way in a particular time and place for very specific purposes.
Constitutionally speaking, the Emergencies Act does not supersede the Charter; by which I mean, it does not suspend judicial review anymore than any other legislation does. Any government at any time can pass legislation (or issue an executive order) knowing that said legislation will undermine and affect Charter rights - the difference with invoking the Act is that the government is communicating to the judiciary in advance, "We know that you are going to be scrutinizing us for Charter claims here, but please trust us, this instance of them being affected is justified!"
In this case, the Courts are replying back, "Nope, you thought we would agree, and we do not." Well fine, the Emergencies Act is premised on the legitimacy of the courts. But this is simply a miscalculation by the Liberals about *how* the courts think, not a repudiation of the Charter itself or the courts' legitimacy in interpreting it.
I would feel differently if the government had invoked the Notwithstanding Clause instead to pass special legislation to take down the convoy, because *that* would in fact be a direct challenge to the authority of the Charter and of the courts. It would be completely legal, but also creating a legal precedent that cannot be casually walked back or reversed.
"Different rules " are applied daily: to think that 2 years of Hamasniks blocking streets is somehow less damaging to our society is willful blindness.
Perhaps you could point to me an example of a pro-Palestinian protest that was anywhere near as disruptive, long lasting, and *illegal* as that of the truckers? (considering noise, location in the CBD of a major city, size, etc).
People who are pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas are spread all over the country and demonstrate at countless different times and places. Unless you can prove that all these disparate groups are *systematically* given lighter treatment than the convoy and despite committing *equivalent* offences, then you do not have evidence of a double-standard against the Ottawa occupiers.
"Systematically given lighter treatment "? How many of them had their bank accts seized, were charged, taken through trials that asked for 10yr sentences, kept in prison w/o bail? Neither side wears angel wings, but the suggestion that both sides were treated the same....... I can't even.....
I don't even know what you mean when you refer to "both sides". Which pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas persons do you believe committed offences equivalent to those of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, and yet received lighter punishments?
If you cannot name names, well police cannot lay charges against phantoms, and courts also cannot convict phantoms.
I repeat: Which specific pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas persons do you believe committed offences equivalent to those of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, and yet received lighter punishments? No nebulous phantoms, please.
The public report on the emergency act said the police had made a deal with truckers and trucks were moving. This has also been testified to at the Lich, Barber trials. That is the truth and is a matter of public record. Something WAS being done.
“Express yourself” without blasting horns and whistles and bullhorns. Maybe even no drums. Just everybody say please very loudly. Sounds easy to enforce...
With no comment whatsoever on the specific details of this ruling, which i was already aware of, it is an interesting experience to read this article in the broader context of today's news feed full of what is going on in MN. It feels very 'Canadian,' somehow, to be arguing over whether we got the expressive, peaceful, noisy, or mischievous parts quite right in the application of law, and wondering if it will it be further litigated in court. I am grateful for the nuance expressed.
The federal government will likely appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
WRT to the author’s observations about the existence of alternative means to clear out the most disruptive and violent of the protesters (à la Ontario and Nova Scotia), the author himself pointed out that Ontario “never got around” to taking action to clear things on that basis.
For the record, I agree with his observations about coming up with less intrusive, and more legally sound, ways of responding to disruption of the sort we saw in 2022 (and which, to a lesser degree, occurs today).
I think it will be interesting to see if the Liberals do appeal this or choose to just ignore the ruling in the expectation that the memory of the whole affair (and the negative PR associated with it) fade away, particularly if they foresee a possible election this year.
Perhaps. But I think there would be sufficient advice from various legal sources that might lead them to set aside the political considerations you spoke of. I’m not sure.
Thanks for the tip! I will keep the volume on low when playing Gordon Lightfoot while BBQing on Canada Day. Is my old Union Jack OK or is that going to cause one of the passing dog-walkers to file a report?
Yeah well done you. Not. I can’t stand JT but I am not sure what he could have done to prevent the huge disturbance in Ottawa against reasonable COVID travel/ border rules. Unless the Ottawa Police would have gotten their act together earlier, that “protest” was not peaceful and most folks now think the courts agreed with what they did.
Went to a Palestinian protest while I was in Ireland last May. 5000 + people . The protest march was organized, respectful and effective. The organizing group consulted with the Garda as to numbers, streets that would be used in the march and provided March marshals to keep the group on task. Lots of posters, drum beaters and chants. Buses, commuter traffic pulled over to let the protesters pass. Police supervised from the sidelines, ambulances followed. The protesters made their point peacefully and effectively. Not even one problem. The Trucker Convoy was hijacked by hooligans and simply turned the whole thing into a civil disobedience near riot. The fact that the Ottawa police were woefully inadequate just exacerbated the situation contributing to the chaos that followed. The whole debacle was exasperating and avoidable.
"... but they should have simply waited a few more days for police to get their act together and enforce existing laws ... Police ... can keep traffic moving ..."
In my mind this was absolutely a failure of not just Ottawa police but the OPP who declined to ensure that Hwy 401 traffic was not impeded. My feelings on this topic are rather high because it added a couple of hours to what was already a stressful trip in the snow driving home to Kingston from my wife's chemo appointment at Princess Margaret in Toronto the previous day. We were continually cut off while trying to pass.
The lyric from a certain Bruce Cockburn song came to mind during that trip, and I really don't like his music ...
I would argue that the reason we see police impotence in the face of large public disorder events is the blowback from police response to the G20 protests in Toronto. Since then, police has taken a very light touch to public protests, even when they veered into illegal acts like vandalism, blocking traffic, harassing people, hat speech and occupying public spaces indefinitely. It’s like their management or the politicians are more worried about the optics of a police crackdown than enforcing the law.
In the case of Ottawa, OPS was caught flat-footed then management and politicians spent more time pointing fingers at each other rather than coming up with a plan to use existing laws. This paralysis led to the Feds panicking and reaching for the Emergency Act sledgehammer.
There aren't really direct consequences for politicians in this country for violating legislation. See the total non-punishment that Scott Moe received for instructing Saskatchewan authorities to defy federal carbon pricing legislation.
That's an inevitable consequence of The Online News Act, legislation which Matt and Jen have been repeatedly critical of. Since 2023 Meta has been obliged to pay fines with each and every news-link share on its platform, and The Line has been deemed a news source, so it is also blocked.
Just looking at the Gaza protesters blocking traffic and harassing Canadian jews in their own neighborhoods. Jewish business has been targeted. Individuals harassed and synagogues fire bombed versus horns honking in downtown Ottawa. So, harassment of jews is peaceful assembly along with general antisemitism, but trucker protests are the real danger.
What a country.
A failure of policing and nothing more.
And police say its the crown prosecutor's fault. Good times.
It's an across-the-board failure. I still believe anyone protesting what is happening in Gaza, anywhere but in front of Israel's embassy, is an idiot. What they're doing is nothing more than harrassment and it should be treated that way.
Just so we're clear on this, I'd like to see all of those self-absorbed protesters kicked off the streets and preventing from blockading ports/capitals/bridges/whatever. My line is protesters don't get to blockade streets, period. The truckers and the Coastal Gas Link protesters were cleared out as they should've been, but far too late. The Gaza protesters should receive similar treatment. A lot of the whining about the trucker protest is akin to being angry about getting pulled over for a speeding ticket even though other cars are speeding past while the officer is writing the ticket.
Blocking streets is illegal under the Criminal Code (well, highways, and many streets meet the definition).
Speaking as a defense lawyer, I don't like law enforcement not enforcing the law - it's unfair to everyone, including my clients. Consistency is important. Possibly the most important principle the justice system has.
The Ottawa convoy was causing millions in damages to the local economy. Also, millions of Canadians were supporting the convoy even knowing full well this damage that was being caused by it, whereas only a fringe minority would support any given episode of harassment against Jews.
Economic damage caused by a protest is a debate about the limits of free assembly; harassment against Jews is a debate about the fundamental right to exist without fear. You know that, right?
Conflating the two suggests that if enough people support a movement, the collateral damage or the behavior of its participants is excused. In reality, the popularity of a movement doesn't grant it immunity from criticism regarding its tactics or the extremist elements that may attach themselves to it.
Oh I am not saying that the convoy is excused by the fact of its mainstream support, nor am I conflating the two. When you said in your post "but trucker protests are the real danger", it seemed to me like you were hinting that there is some kind of double-standard being practiced in Canada in prejudice against the Ottawa occupiers and in favour of persons who harass Jews.
My simple point is that many conservatives in this country have a soft spot for protests that cause economic damages when it is done as an excuse to advance political goals that they agree with. And that's why the convoy was a special cause of polarization in a way that episodes of harassment of Jews are not; in the latter case, there's nothing that mainstream ordinary citizens are in disagreement about; the consensus is that Jew harassment is wrong.
There is a double standard
The double-standard is in favour of the Ottawa occupiers, who got special support from the Conservative Party for their law-breaking, because ostensibly causing millions in local damages to a city is okay just as long as you are pursuing an appropriately anti-Liberal cause.
....no.
There is a double standard, clearly. Anyone who enjoys democracy might not like the idea of a trucker protest being a protest but that's how she goes and that's why the courts were right to spank the government Federal court upheld the decision that protests were not a national security threat.
Not being a "national security threat" is quite a low bar to meet! As Dehaas notes above, the Ottawa occupation was still a lawless disgrace regardless of some unnecessary government responses to it. But what is most disgraceful of all was the support of the Conservatives for it. Causing millions in damages to a city is okay, just as long as your "protest" advances a cause contrary to the Liberals' agenda. If you were to cause millions in damages advancing a cause that the Conservatives don't like though, then you can count on them cracking down hard upon you.
A quick list of things the Freedom Convoy protestors did that are illegal under the Criminal Code: blocked a highway, mischief under 5000, mischief over 5000, probably assault (in its "accosting people while armed" form), cause disturbance. Oh, and it probably could have been declared a riot at least some of the time and dispersed using those powers.
The idea that the police couldn't do anything is silly, and was silly at the time.
It's called antisemitism and not 'jew harassment'. The non-enforcement of existing hate laws was/is prevalent at Gaza protests that have been going on for more than two years. It's sad that downtown Ottawa was inconvenienced but that's democracy baby.
Antisemitism is a weasel word for Jew-hatred. "Liberals", NDP, Greens, various leftists and wokeys are very much openly OK with Jew-hatred and are practicing it, while openly supporting sadistic Islamist murderers.
Expecting the law not to be enforced is not part of democracy. The courts deemed the Emergencies Act to be illegal, but plenty of Conservatives still want Chris Barber and Tamara Lich to be pardoned and exempt from the consequences of their law-breaking, which they are still guilty of regardless.
The Line has made this point many times. There are already laws in existence to prevent the bad outcomes here. We just didn’t enforce them, either because of incompetence, unclear division of responsibility between municipal/provincial/federal governments, paralysis on the “comms”, or political direction to the police to stand down.
(That last one is particularly galling to me; we set a bad precedent on the violent armed attack on Coastal GasLink and the church-burnings by the Trudeau government quietly ordering the RCMP to not investigate or arrest anyone.)
We don’t need new laws, we need the will to enforce the ones we have.
The LPC government. Everyone who supported the legislation, not just Mr. Trudeau, should be held responsible. Amazing how little publicity and commentary has followed the ruling.
The ruling basically found that the Emergencies Act wasn’t needed because all of them could have (and should have) been arrested under existing laws.
Don’t take this ruling to mean that the occupation of downtown Ottawa was legal. It appears that both the occupation itself, and the use of the Emergencies Act, were illegal.
No question.
I generally don't expect the GoC to break the law and never apologize. After all, they weep Maudlin tears for lesser infractions.
The wrong people protested, the deplorables, misogynists, science deniers, the fringes. Detect a note of bitterness? You’re right
I have written in this space, on this topic before, so I will not repeat myself. Save to note again: the law of nuisance trespass and the issuance of court injunctions is relatively similar in all of the provinces. Just like it is in respect of illegal behaviour in connection with labour disputes. What is different is the willingness of the police to enforce the law; which is why ILLEGAL campus occupations were gone in Alberta in a couple of days and lasted weeks in Ontario, Quebec and BC, were the willingness to enforce the law - which is to say protect the property and civil rights of ordinary citizens - was missing. Just as, in Ontario, aboriginal protesters illegally blocked a railway in Ontario for weeks and terrorized citizens in Caledonia and police let them get away with it.
Let me add this. As I see it: the origin of this problem is NOT any change in the statute laws or the common law. Rather, there has been a change in the “attitude” to enforcement, following the police response to the Ipperwash occupation and the death of aboriginal protester Dudley George - who was killed by a police bullet. (The officer in question was convicted of criminal negligence causing death). Influenced by the views of former Judge Sidney Linden, who conducted a public enquiry into the Ipperwash situation.
It was those unhappy events that fueled the idea that the “peacefulness” of the protest is more important than the “unlawfulness” of it; and further that that politicians should never ever influence police tactical decisions. (Because, in that case, Premier Mike Harris had apparently demanded that the occupied park be cleared by the OPP; and it was alleged that the OPP had felt bound to follow his “instructions”).
And of course there is something to be said for those concerns.
For as anyone who has dealt with protests will know: they pose tricky judgement calls, and a balancing of potentially competing “rights” and “interests”. To protest for those so inclined; and to remain uninvolved and free to go about your business, for those who are uninterested.
Similarly, we want police to exercise balanced and independent judgement; and politicians should not be mixed up in law enforcement decisions. “Politicizing” the law would be a bad thing.
So there is a balance to be struck.
The problem is this: what happens if protesters are unlawfully interfering with the legal interests of ordinary citizens and the police are unwilling or unable to address the situation? What can the citizens affected by the illegal behavior, actually do about it, to make it stop, or to obtain redress?
Because that is an issue that is still unresolved and the subject of debate.
For example: will the businesses whose commerce was blocked by the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge get compensation for the economic damage that they suffered? What about the Gay Pride marchers in Toronto, whose parade was interrupted or the Italian Community dinner guests whose dinner was cancelled or the universities whose operations were interfered? And so on. Because one thing is clear: a purported “law” without a remedy is written on water. And the absence of a legal remedy is an invitation to “self help”.
I'm pretty sure if aboriginal protestors rolled up on Rideau Street with a bunch of rigs they would have gotten the same treatment the truckers did.
It's funny how absolutely no one ever remembers the summer of "OCCUPY" way back in 2011, which took up arbitrary residence in front of Parliament for MONTHS.
They didn't have big rigs along for the ride, but they were a large, rather unruly crowd, and they "occupied" downtown Ottawa with their tent city just as surely as the Convoy did, with remarkably few consequences.
We know that a ton of Ottawa residents were genuinely angered by the 2022 convoy, probably to the point of it affecting their votes. Ottawa used to be a city where multiple Conservatives could get elected, now they have been driven out of every riding there except only Carleton, only provincially.
What is the evidence of how widespread the anger was during the 2011 Occupy protest? At any rate, a tent city would not be a cause of as much noise pollution.
Did they block streets?
Not a chance.
The Convoy remains the largest gathering of selfish imbeciles in Canadian history to date. It did not justify the Emergencies Act, as the moment the US called us an unreliable trading partner (the irony), Doug leapt into action and suddenly, opening the border was more important than party politics. It was all over before the Act was invoked.
Support of it is a big part of why Pierre lost his riding.....and will never be PM.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-appeal-9.7046769
I could be reading it wrong, of course.
As I said, it did not justify the Emergencies Act. It was already over when it was enacted.
It was always obvious that invoking the Emergencies Act was mostly cover for a Liberal government that was embarrassed by their own stunned paralysis in the face of the protest and their incompetent failure to respond. Nothing that was done to actually clear out the protester required the Emergencies Act and could've been done far earlier; the fact that the Act was invoked unnecessarily does nothing to invalidate the effort to clear out the protesters.
What's depressing about all of this is that governments are missing an opportunity to articulate a new standard for protesters of all stripes: engage in any blockade of public transportation networks or infrastructure, and you will consistently and rapidly be arrested and removed from the area. Want to mass on Parliament Hill, outside Queen's Park, or at the Vancouver Art Gallery? Knock your socks off. Set foot on a public street and disrupt traffic? Now you've broken the law and will pay the consequences.
Heck, such an approach can actually increase the value of their protest: the moral power of civil disobedience in the past was the willingness of protesters to face the consequences of violating unjust laws or defying unjust systems. Otherwise, it's basically a politically-charged 5K fun walk.
Excellent observations. In particular:
Nothing that was done to actually clear out the protester required the Emergencies Act and could've been done far earlier; the fact that the Act was invoked unnecessarily does nothing to invalidate the effort to clear out the protesters.
Despite having been vaxed I was sympathetic to the grievance triggering the trucker's protest. Regardless of one's take on that though, I think it was fair to give them that first weekend in Ottawa. But by the first Sunday at the latest they should have been cleared out. And I have zero sympathy for anybody whinging about the manner in which they ultimately were cleared out (including the presence of police on horseback "stomping on protesters"). Plenty of advance warning was given and this unlawful conduct had gone on FAR too long - they needed to GTFO and forcefully removed if they refused. That said, invoking the Emergencies Act was a shameful act of authoritarianism that absolutely dwarfs any other wrongdoing associated with the convoy.
And while on the subject, a few words about Carney's masquerading as a civil libertarian last week. On Thursday he doubled down on the previous Tuesday’s gobsmacking attempt to associate himself with Vaclav Havel, stating: "In a time of rising populism and ethnic nationalism, Canada can show how diversity is a strength, not a weakness. In a time of democratic decline, we can show how rights can be protected and equal freedoms endure.” Well, Mr. C, your predecessor’s government did quite the job of showing how rights can be protected and equal freedoms can endure when it invoked the Emergencies Act - egged on by you openly and enthusiastically advocating for that very outcome, let’s not forget.
And to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) he has still not said a word about the Federal Court of Appeal decision completely eviscerating the government. Until he addresses that decision, acknowledges the government’s gross over-reach, apologizes for it (both in his capacity as current PM and his personal capacity for his insane op-ed) and commits to actually protecting rights and freedoms rather than advocating for their evisceration, he has zero credibility in speaking out on that subject. Frankly, his comments on authoritarianism last week are akin to Tony Soprano speaking out against loansharking.
In February 2022 Carney advocated for cracking down on the Convoy and he argued for declaring a "state of emergency". He did, however, actually call for invoking the Emergencies Act. As such, his his record on the file actually holds up well even in light of the Court ruling.
Notwithstanding the ruling, I would disagree that "invoking the Emergencies Act was a shameful act of authoritarianism that absolutely dwarfs any other wrongdoing associated with the convoy". Whether or not it was strictly necessary, it was certainly time-limited, done only after lengthy and public deliberation, and done as a result of public pressure. This was not a government that was being reckless in expanding its powers.
I disagree that his record holds up well. Until such time as he acknowledges the FCA ruling and concedes the government was wrong his record is atrocious.
"Whether or not it was strictly necessary". This type of waffling, politician/lawyer language is only appropriate when discussing something that was a close call. The FCA could not have been clearer - this was not a close call in the slightest.
'it was certainly time-limited". I may be wrong but my recollection is that the main reason it was "time-limited" is because the Senate was stepping up to the plate and threatening to stop it dead in its tracks so no credit for that. But even if it were entirely due to cabinet acting of their own volition, the fact it was "time-limited" is irrelevant. This was gross over-reach as the FCA made clear and the fact it was a few days rather than a few months is not something that is a point in their favour.
"done only after lengthy and public deliberation, and done as a result of public pressure." I take issue with "lengthy and public deliberation" but even conceding that point, so what? The fact huge swaths of the population may be supportive of authoritarian measures is no reason to kowtow to them. In fact, it is during times like these that allegedly cooler heads in Cabinet should resist authoritarian measures. Every person in that cabinet proved themselves unfit for governing.
"This was not a government that was being reckless in expanding its powers." We will have to agree to strongly disagree and not for the first time on this file.
There were reasonable people arguing for invoking the Emergencies Act. I still remember reading at the time this article by the national security analyst Wesley Wark: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2022/02/is-it-time-for-the-emergencies-act/
A lot of people are memory-holing the fact that there was an entire public inquiry that investigated this whole affair and which gave its public approval to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Of course, the outcome of that inquiry was not legally binding, and the courts exercised their full authority to simply ignore it. But we have a picture here of a government that probably did not consult closely enough with its lawyers but which which otherwise tried to needle the thread of a difficult situation.
You specifically said that the government's behaviour was worse than that of the convoy. That seems to imply that doing something that was of ambiguous legality but then ruled as illegal after the fact is as capricious as doing something that you know to be illegal (the downtown blockade), creating a culture of lawlessness among a large group of people, and explicitly inviting society to cheer on and praise you. I could see the Trudeau government's behaviour as being worse if they had been visibly chest-beating in their enthusiasm on the crackdown and if the Liberal Party was being jubilantly partisan about it, but this was one of the rarer instances of the government behaving itself maturely. Trudeau's popularity would not have plummeted if he looked as mature for the rest of his time in office as he did then.
The reason I say the government's behaviour was worse than that of the convoy is based on the principle of proportionality. It's the same reason I would not advocate the death penalty for jaywalkers. Suspending Charter rights because a bunch of non-violent people blockaded streets in downtown Ottawa for a few weeks (making the authorities look as effective as the Keystone Cops in the process) while not actually posing any threat to the security of the Country was an absolute travesty. Recall, I take no issue with how the police acted once they finally got around to breaking it up.
As for the Liberals' conduct surrounding the invocation of the Act I recall Freeland chortling about it at the press conference announcing the invocation. That has no bearing on the legality of the invocation, of course; I offer it merely in response to your claim that they were not jubilantly partisan about it.
Cheers
I do not agree that the Court ruling proves that the invocation was egregiously disproportionate. The Charter has always been subject to "reasonable" limitations, and the difference between reasonable and unreasonable is often a fine line that the courts are forced to reduce to a binary question. The invocation did not suspend all Charter rights everywhere, but suspended them in a particular way in a particular time and place for very specific purposes.
Constitutionally speaking, the Emergencies Act does not supersede the Charter; by which I mean, it does not suspend judicial review anymore than any other legislation does. Any government at any time can pass legislation (or issue an executive order) knowing that said legislation will undermine and affect Charter rights - the difference with invoking the Act is that the government is communicating to the judiciary in advance, "We know that you are going to be scrutinizing us for Charter claims here, but please trust us, this instance of them being affected is justified!"
In this case, the Courts are replying back, "Nope, you thought we would agree, and we do not." Well fine, the Emergencies Act is premised on the legitimacy of the courts. But this is simply a miscalculation by the Liberals about *how* the courts think, not a repudiation of the Charter itself or the courts' legitimacy in interpreting it.
I would feel differently if the government had invoked the Notwithstanding Clause instead to pass special legislation to take down the convoy, because *that* would in fact be a direct challenge to the authority of the Charter and of the courts. It would be completely legal, but also creating a legal precedent that cannot be casually walked back or reversed.
I agree completely with your Carney comments
Was the Emergencies Act wrongly applied? Maybe. But something had to be done, and it wasn't being done.
Protest marches are legal. Expressing yourself is legal. Blockades are not (even if you're blockading using a bouncy castle).
Those are the rules for everybody. A lot of the truckers seem to think that different rules should apply to them. I don't know why that is.
"Different rules " are applied daily: to think that 2 years of Hamasniks blocking streets is somehow less damaging to our society is willful blindness.
Perhaps you could point to me an example of a pro-Palestinian protest that was anywhere near as disruptive, long lasting, and *illegal* as that of the truckers? (considering noise, location in the CBD of a major city, size, etc).
Personally, I found knowing the law helpful in this discussion: https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/CCLA_KYR-Protest_Guide-Fall-2025.pdf
Do you watch the news??
Yes, I do, regularly, and I live in Toronto where there are pro-Hamas protests regularly.
My question stands.
Because the Hamasnicks go home to their own beds at night doesn't make their daily/ weekly protests any less destructive.
On the contrary, the conduct of the protestors *does* affect the legality of what they are doing!
People who are pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas are spread all over the country and demonstrate at countless different times and places. Unless you can prove that all these disparate groups are *systematically* given lighter treatment than the convoy and despite committing *equivalent* offences, then you do not have evidence of a double-standard against the Ottawa occupiers.
"Systematically given lighter treatment "? How many of them had their bank accts seized, were charged, taken through trials that asked for 10yr sentences, kept in prison w/o bail? Neither side wears angel wings, but the suggestion that both sides were treated the same....... I can't even.....
I don't even know what you mean when you refer to "both sides". Which pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas persons do you believe committed offences equivalent to those of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, and yet received lighter punishments?
If you cannot name names, well police cannot lay charges against phantoms, and courts also cannot convict phantoms.
I'm tapping out.....
I repeat: Which specific pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas persons do you believe committed offences equivalent to those of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, and yet received lighter punishments? No nebulous phantoms, please.
I'm sure those who were inconvenienced by the truckers are okay.
ah yes, the law applies to other people, but not to you. you'll have to explain to me why you think that.
The public report on the emergency act said the police had made a deal with truckers and trucks were moving. This has also been testified to at the Lich, Barber trials. That is the truth and is a matter of public record. Something WAS being done.
“Express yourself” without blasting horns and whistles and bullhorns. Maybe even no drums. Just everybody say please very loudly. Sounds easy to enforce...
With no comment whatsoever on the specific details of this ruling, which i was already aware of, it is an interesting experience to read this article in the broader context of today's news feed full of what is going on in MN. It feels very 'Canadian,' somehow, to be arguing over whether we got the expressive, peaceful, noisy, or mischievous parts quite right in the application of law, and wondering if it will it be further litigated in court. I am grateful for the nuance expressed.
The federal government will likely appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
WRT to the author’s observations about the existence of alternative means to clear out the most disruptive and violent of the protesters (à la Ontario and Nova Scotia), the author himself pointed out that Ontario “never got around” to taking action to clear things on that basis.
For the record, I agree with his observations about coming up with less intrusive, and more legally sound, ways of responding to disruption of the sort we saw in 2022 (and which, to a lesser degree, occurs today).
I think it will be interesting to see if the Liberals do appeal this or choose to just ignore the ruling in the expectation that the memory of the whole affair (and the negative PR associated with it) fade away, particularly if they foresee a possible election this year.
Perhaps. But I think there would be sufficient advice from various legal sources that might lead them to set aside the political considerations you spoke of. I’m not sure.
That was Doug playing Party politics.
Of course they have to. What’s the point of having total control otherwise?
Thanks for the tip! I will keep the volume on low when playing Gordon Lightfoot while BBQing on Canada Day. Is my old Union Jack OK or is that going to cause one of the passing dog-walkers to file a report?
Yes, please self-censor.
Should you decide to walk on the wild side with your loud music and Imperialist flag, might as well go whole hog and wear this:
https://shop.babylonbee.com/collections/canada-americas-biggest-state
That will certainly provoke the use of Emergency Measures Act...
Yeah well done you. Not. I can’t stand JT but I am not sure what he could have done to prevent the huge disturbance in Ottawa against reasonable COVID travel/ border rules. Unless the Ottawa Police would have gotten their act together earlier, that “protest” was not peaceful and most folks now think the courts agreed with what they did.
Like I said. Well done you. Not.
Went to a Palestinian protest while I was in Ireland last May. 5000 + people . The protest march was organized, respectful and effective. The organizing group consulted with the Garda as to numbers, streets that would be used in the march and provided March marshals to keep the group on task. Lots of posters, drum beaters and chants. Buses, commuter traffic pulled over to let the protesters pass. Police supervised from the sidelines, ambulances followed. The protesters made their point peacefully and effectively. Not even one problem. The Trucker Convoy was hijacked by hooligans and simply turned the whole thing into a civil disobedience near riot. The fact that the Ottawa police were woefully inadequate just exacerbated the situation contributing to the chaos that followed. The whole debacle was exasperating and avoidable.
"... but they should have simply waited a few more days for police to get their act together and enforce existing laws ... Police ... can keep traffic moving ..."
In my mind this was absolutely a failure of not just Ottawa police but the OPP who declined to ensure that Hwy 401 traffic was not impeded. My feelings on this topic are rather high because it added a couple of hours to what was already a stressful trip in the snow driving home to Kingston from my wife's chemo appointment at Princess Margaret in Toronto the previous day. We were continually cut off while trying to pass.
The lyric from a certain Bruce Cockburn song came to mind during that trip, and I really don't like his music ...
I would argue that the reason we see police impotence in the face of large public disorder events is the blowback from police response to the G20 protests in Toronto. Since then, police has taken a very light touch to public protests, even when they veered into illegal acts like vandalism, blocking traffic, harassing people, hat speech and occupying public spaces indefinitely. It’s like their management or the politicians are more worried about the optics of a police crackdown than enforcing the law.
In the case of Ottawa, OPS was caught flat-footed then management and politicians spent more time pointing fingers at each other rather than coming up with a plan to use existing laws. This paralysis led to the Feds panicking and reaching for the Emergency Act sledgehammer.
And the consequences for the Liberal government that breached the protesters right of free expression where? Exactly nothing.
There aren't really direct consequences for politicians in this country for violating legislation. See the total non-punishment that Scott Moe received for instructing Saskatchewan authorities to defy federal carbon pricing legislation.
FYI. Tried to share on FB and got this message, This post can't be shared
In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can't be shared.
That's an inevitable consequence of The Online News Act, legislation which Matt and Jen have been repeatedly critical of. Since 2023 Meta has been obliged to pay fines with each and every news-link share on its platform, and The Line has been deemed a news source, so it is also blocked.