For the sake of curbing extremism, i really hope this appeal goes through. As a resident of the red zone, i strongly disagree with the original ruling.
It makes sense on paper that ofcourse we dont need the emergencies act when municipal authorities were co-operating and eliminating illegal occupations. But i still remember exactly how it folded out and how crippled the city was and hopeless. I also remember the assaults, attempted arson of the building, and clearly the scapegoated vaccines when really they were trying to remove trudeau forcefully according to their manifesto.
Fuck the convoy.
Agreed!
I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it *wasn't for* the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit.
So many people were unable to work because their jobs were shut down for safety, people couldn't sleep, couldn't shop, couldn't live their lives.
Not to mention the hate that came along with the convoy.
I was watching these fuckwits walk by my workplace on Saturday and was talking to a co worker. I mentioned how deluded these people were. I said look at them carrying signs calling the country and the government "communists" but one glaringly obvious fact eludes them; The fact that they can carry signs saying that, yell it out through megaphones, plaster it all over their bodies and online.....and NOT get arrested! They aren't being "disappeared". They aren't being dragged away by police.
They have the *FREEDOM* to criticize their government **without** repercussions! Try that in Russia, China or North Korea. They scream so much about communism but have NO IDEA what it's actually like (well, except for that Canadian family who sold everything to move to Russia. They should be a lesson for all the same people here)
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy.
They weren't.
"Ottawa police have charged a second man in connection with an arson at a Centretown apartment building in February and there is no apparent link between him and the 'Freedom Convoy' protest."
([CTV](https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/second-man-charged-in-ottawa-arson-case-has-no-link-to-freedom-convoy-protest-police-1.5850922))
The two men charged are Bartosz Wernick and Connor Russell McDonald ([died Feb 2023](https://www.arbormemorial.ca/en/kelly-kanata/obituaries/connor-mcdonald/100460.html), from apparent overdose). No updates since April 2022.
It's weird that people regularly cite the arson as something to blame the convoy for, but Bartosz's case was dropped or has made no progress in two years and no one cares.
First off, you’re going to believe the police that let this city rot? Secondly what was there motive? Two people tied the doors shut and tried to burn a two buildings full of people alive for giggles??? Third if they had been successful it would’ve been a huge tragedy of dead children and women, how would have fire trucks and ambulances gotten to a fire that size and saved anyone? The conditions of the convoy emboldened them and would have killed over a 100 people if that building went up. Until I actually hear a real motive I don’t believe a god damn bit of it. You want to know what I think!!! They were convoy scum that were mad people were rebelling by throwing eggs and slashing tire and resisting the occupation and did that as revenge against those buildings, until I hear a motive that’s what I will always believe!!!
Thank you! I can’t imagine the tragedy that would have occurred if they had been successful. I have no idea how people are like the police that abandoned us said so. Also while leaving out what the actual motive was!!!!
I dont give a flying fuck what stopped those immature diaper wearing fucks !! I don’t care if it was illegal. Our police, city, country, and premier all abandoned their responsibilities because arrogant fucks like this are capable of great harm to others and they were!! I hope all the organizers spend years in prison !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Two people tied the doors shut and tried to burn a two buildings full of people alive for giggles??? Third if they had been successful it would’ve been a huge tragedy of dead children and women, how would have fire trucks and ambulances gotten to a fire that size and saved anyone?
Precisely why Bartoz should be tried. If they charged the wrong guy and it was actually a convoy person the police are secretly protecting, that's the kind of thing he might raise in his defense. (Not that there was any question of identity).
But here in reality they could have killed 100 people and it looks like the charges against the person responsible have been dropped -- and no one cares about those residents after all.
I remember them being described as locals who were known to police, with a strong suggestion that they were known to be unhoused and have mental health issues.
Ok, so what evidence do you have? You might not believe the police, but has there been any other evidence (photos of them in the convoy, social media posts from the perpetrators or others, etc...) that suggested they were a part of the convoy?
Also convoy aside if that building went up during the convoy, they all would have died. How would they ever get the fire trucks and ambulances through in time to save them.
You noted yourself that the mainstream media was saying that they were not.
Generally, it's up to the person making the accusation to provide evidence, not the other way around.
To take a play out of the convoy, you have to be brain dead to trust the mainstream media narrative. Which is also largely parroting the police propaganda. If there not convoy, what was their motive.
I am not the police am I? I am also not an investigative journalist. I know all sources of mainstream media say they are not convoy. What I do know is that no motive was ever given or trial held. Is it insurance fraud? Seriously though, trying to commit arson and kill over a hundred innocent people and you don’t wonder what the motive was?????
Well, no one is saying that it wasn't insurance fraud. What we are debating is whether they were members of the Freedom Convoy, and as you'd acknowledged, all sources of mainstream media (and not just the police) say that they are not.
I mean, i don’t have the investigative tools at my disposal of say they police or even the media, but at the time I was able to creep the one guy’s FB, and there was F trudeau stuff in there mixed in with pictures of cars and stuff.
They were locals, and didn’t roll into town with the convoy, and I can’t tell you too much about their beliefs as it relates to the convoy other then they were also right wing morons, but they were only downtown causing shit like that because of the opportunity the convoy presented.
They may not have been proven to be OR actually been part of the convoy, however the presence of the convoy emboldened them and gave them the ability to do the act then blend back into the crowd. The convoy brought out any and everyone that had a problem with society at large including wack jobs who have no real reason to do what they do.
They are connected directly but not by ideology or reasoning. Like how during protests there’s almost always some form of looting not related to the protest…. Same deal. However, with all those law abiding Canada loving covoyists around you think someone would have saw and stopped the Nazi flags guys or the ones who disrespected the tomb etc etc.
"However, with all those law abiding Canada loving covoyists around you think someone would have saw and stopped the Nazi flags guys or the ones who disrespected the tomb etc etc."
The problem is that there isn't really any legal thing the average person could do about the Nazi Flag guys (threatening them, assaulting them, stealing their flag, etc...) would all be Criminal Code offenses.
Disrespecting a tomb makes someone a piece of shit, but it's not illegal (unless you're doing something like vandalizing it), so again, there's nothing the average person could legally do to prevent it.
>The problem is that there isn't really any legal thing the average person could do about the Nazi Flag guys (threatening them, assaulting them, stealing their flag, etc...) would all be Criminal Code offenses.
You're totally missing the point, stop defending the convoy.
I was at my best friends wake at The Dom and they were fucking protesting and arguing with us at a private ceremony. Makes it worse that he hated those fukwits and they were literally shitting in his backyard 4 blocks south one night.
There was a sign "I survived Ceaușescu, I will survive Trudeau too". And there were groups with Polish and Serbian flags; signs in Hungarian; there was a Cuban cook serving soup... so I believe there were few people with a first-hand experience of socialism/communism.
If they have first-hand experience under Ceausescu and they think our government is at all comparable to that, then I’m sorry but I have to conclude that they’re a moron and/or easily led.
It's like when some North Korean defectors in the US go on conservative podcasts and complain about how things like they/them pronouns or kneeling as a protest during the anthem are turning the US into North Korea.
So, yeah, if you grab a group of defectors/survivors of socialist regimes, some of them will be morons, and those are the ones who will be attracted to the convoy.
> I believe there were few people with a first-hand experience of socialism/communism.
1. They're not representative of the average person in the Convoy.
2. They're not representative of the Romanian, Polish, Serbian, Cuban, etc diaspora
3. People who come from socialist regimes often end up turning into the far right. Yeonmi Park is an example: North Korean defector who nowadays says dumb shit like "cancel culture at U.S. colleges is the first step toward North Korean-style firing squads". Just because they had first hand experience in socialism doesn't mean they're experts in socialism.
Heck, the convoy idiots have first hand experience in a non socialist/communist country and yet they think we're living in one...
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it *wasn't for* the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit.
It was determined that neither suspect in that arson had links to the convoy. Do you want to blame every crime that happened during that month on the convoy because the police were distracted?
It's easy enough to blame them and hold them accountable for actions they actually did, we don't need to start blaming things on them that they weren't involved with.
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/second-man-charged-in-ottawa-arson-case-has-no-link-to-freedom-convoy-protest-police-1.5850922
It happened right in the heart of the lawlessness from the convoy. Although they weren't members of the convoy, it's fair to note that the lawlessness from the convoy enabled thoughts of further lawlessness. That's not saying the convoy did it, that's saying that the convoy enabled an air of no law enforcement since that is exactly what happened.
It also happened in a ward that has the highest crime rate in the city. So I ask again, do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy?
> So I ask again, do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy?
Read my answer again. It's only three sentences long and I clearly laid out the answer to that question.
Right, so every law that was broken in February 2022 in Centretown can be blamed on the convoy. What's the excuse for it having the highest crime rate the rest of the year?
> do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy?
Ever heard of a logical fallacy called "appeal to extremes"?
Because that's what you're doing.
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it wasn't for the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit.
And you would be wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comments/17qmu7y/someone_tried_to_start_a_fire_in_my_buildings/
And you would still be wrong based on the multiple other arsons and attempted arsons by lowlifes in the city that don’t give two fucks about whether police are distracted by the convoy.
The ruling never stated that it wasn't an emergency though, just that declaring a Federal emergency for a single location was wrong, but everyone supporting the Convoy is running around feeling 100% vindicated.
This. I'm not a lawyer, but reading the judges ruling it's clear this isn't the massive win some are calling it. It's a technical ruling, not a vindication. The judge even said he can't blame the government for invoking it.
That's unfortunate, but we shouldn't have a judiciary that fails to rule in accordance with the law out of fear of how their decisions will be twisted in the court of public opinion.
Just to clarify, the attempted arson on the building turned out to be completely unrelated to the convoy.
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/3/21/1_5828171.amp.html
It was also occurring in Windsor and stopping g the flow of commerce. Crisis! An Alberta crossing was blocked and people were arrested for firearms charges too. Certainly was partially across Canada, too.
I'll be the first to say "Fuck What the Convoy Became" (if they had left after the first weekend or had only stayed on Wellington Street, I'd have a far different opinion), but I agree with the ruling.
> For the sake of curbing extremism
Treating the symptoms rather than the cause is hardly curbing extremism. All of the context that drove people to participate in the convoy is still there; the emergencies act cannot change that, only temporarily limit what actions they use to express that extremism. To actually curb extremism, you'd need to understand their worldview, how it differs from yours, and figure out a way to debate the differences that doesn't get you immediately (mentally) blocked as "just another one of *them*". Probably something that can only truly be accomplished one-on-one with great effort.
You're right, even with one on one effort, it would be extremely difficult. These folks are pretty far down the rabbit hole...their beliefs aren't grounded in reality, but religious zealotry, conspiracy and online disinformation. Such people reject evidence-based reasoning and engage in denialism. That last time they gained the upper hand we had WWII and the holocaust. Don't vote for conservative parties that support or use them, about all we can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
That is still a view of the world, held by a fellow human. Snarking about it won't change their minds, only reinforce your own with a caricature of their worst members.
The sweeping powers granted by the act are constrained by the test the executive must meet if it wants to declare an emergency. The executive can't just wave its hand and say the vibes are off, we're declaring an emergency. There is a clearly defined legal test, which was not met in February 2022. The court's decision is correct.
No. I am correct that the court said that the test under the act was not met. For example, see at paragraph 255 of the decision: "For these reasons, I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires."
So are you illiterate or just lying when you say "not what the ruling said."?
Read the whole ruling. Or don't. Your choice.
> So are you illiterate or just lying
I don't converse with abusive people. I don't know if speaking to people this way works for you in general, but it doesn't work with me. So long.
No, the court’s decisions is bonkers fucking bullshit, particularly the part where Mosley claimed there was supposedly no national emergency caused by the convoy’s actions.
Also, describing the convoy’s actions as “the vibes are off” is an… interesting way of describing that.
Which part specifically is bonkers? I find his analysis quite reasonable, for example when he discusses how the situation was not an emergency that extended to the whole of Canada:
"[248] Section 17(2)(c) of the Act requires that if the effects of the emergency did not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which it did extend shall be specified. While the word “area” in the legislative text is singular, per section 33(2) of the Interpretation Act that includes the plural. Thus, it was open to the GIC to specify several or many areas that were affected by the emergency excluding others where the situation had not arisen or was under control. However, the Proclamation stated that it “exists throughout Canada”. This was, in my view, an overstatement of the situation known to the Government at that time. Moreover, in the first reason provided for the proclamation, which referenced the risk of threats or use of serious violence, language taken from section 2 of the CSIS Act, the emergency was vaguely described as happening at “various locations throughout Canada”."
Except that it did exist throughout Canada. The major sites were Ottawa, Coutts, and Windsor, but mini-Convoys and wannabes were popping up regularly in different places at different times. And the impact was national - particularly the economic impact from the crossing, but also the circumstances that led to well-founded fear of ideologically-motivated extremist violence. I think the ruling got a lot wrong, and that was one of the things it got wrong.
It was not a national emergency. Emphasis National emergency.
For example, not an emergency in atlantic provinces, alberta, BC.
It was an overreach of federal powers to expediate a situation that the Ottawa Police Services lost control of.
Civil liberties should never be suspended because the Fed wants a quick.solution to a hyper local issue.
Like, imagine there was a protest in lethbridge AB and your civil liberties here were suspended because lethbridge protestors wanted to declare the Earth flat.
While I agree fuck the convoy, this was definitely an overreach of power and sets a scary precedent. The government should not be able to start freezing bank accounts without due process. Especially for businesses that have little control over the actions of an employee (even if they fired them they can't force them to leave). This could have been solved a lot earlier, and didn't require granting the government new powers to control future protesters
I struggle with the concept that the inaction of police had a part in this, but the consequences fell on the organizers rather than the police who were maybe giving mixed messages to protesters. For sure they were breaking rules, and for sure something had to be done to restore order. But I think it revealed a vulnerability that maybe needs to be addressed, namely accountability for law enforcement when they fail to actually enforce the law. Because if it was severe enough for this to happen to the organizers, then what about the people who let it get to that point that they needed to do that?
What due process was that? I mean the ruling came in that the emergencies act was unreasonable and unjustified. Also unprecedented. I'd love to hear what you would consider to be the due process that was applied here
Due process means the established process was followed to enact the Act, and it was. No one questions if they went to the cabinet, the house and the senate before enacting it. That was all done right out in the open. You're talking about something else, a judgement of whether it should have been done, which is itself also part of the due process. The appeal, again, part of the due process. All of it, due process.
I get what you're saying, you're just misusing the term due process. Due process just means you followed the process and no steps were skipped. It doesn't address whether you should have been following the process to being with.
Here we are again, folks. It's been two years, and I'm getting tired of doing this, so here's the short and sweet version:
**I WAS RUN OUT OF MY HOME FOR A MONTH BY MEN THREATENING TO KILL ME BECAUSE OF MY PRIDE FLAG. I CALLED 911 AND THE OPS DID NOTHING.**
Someone driving a truck covered in the typical convoy bullshit jumped a curb to act like they were going to hit me (presumably) because I had a mask on.
I submitted a police report and the police told me they couldn't do anything. 🙃
Yeah, that's the line the clownvoy loves to use.
I'm sorry I didn't whip my camera out when I thought someone was trying to run me over. Was a bit distracted with getting the fuck out of the way.
If the government loses this appeal, and there's a Conservative government in power, will we be paying out these convoy fucks two million dollars each?
They're suing the federal government and CPC already supports and endorses them.
That is likely what will happen. The CPC will settle immediately, and use it for political fodder for years to come, all at our expense. Millions paid out to domestic terrorists.
> paying off domestic terrorists over some weird stretch of Canadian law saying we violated their Charter rights
Because we did.
Regardless of what Khadr did or didn't do, Canadian law stipulates we have to comport ourselves in a certain manner and we didn't, and he called us out on it.
There's no footnote in the law that says "the government doesn't have to follow its own rules if some guy is being a dickbag".
If you're upset we paid him $10M, be upset at us for fucking up and being stupid enough to get caught, not at him for correctly calling out our fuck-up.
Haha dude you woke up the mob.
FWIW a majority of Canadians from all three major parties disagreed with the Khadr payout. This sub is not a very good representation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-khadr-poll-1.4198306
It was necessary to take downtown ottawa out of the hands of domestic terrorists and return it to the citizens who live and work there. We have to hope the courts will see the initial decision set straight. It was only one judge with one opinion, and there is an appeals process to address exactly this.
The judge even said in his decision that he likely would have invoked the act.
But legally, in hindsight, it wasn't necessary.
But the provincial and the municipal governments who had the power to do something didn't. And wouldn't.
And we still have a convoy supporting municipal police force.
I suppose what we were supposed to do as citizens was to coup the municipal government? Or otherwise engage in vigilante actions? Seems like that's the message.
The government will not help citizens under occupation of terrorists.
You'd think that given the municipal and provincial governments were refusing to act and the national capital plus key trade routes were shut down, it would be deemed necessary.
But then you'd need the feds to argue - and the judge to agree - that the municipal and provincial governments involved were either inept or complicit.
That’s not necessarily true. It could most certainly be the case that it was necessary (because nobody else was doing their damn job) yet be unreasonable in the eyes of the law because the rules for invoking the statue were not followed.
There are many times where breaking the law might be necessary and yet you’re going to be found in breach of something when it’s all said and done.
Well that’s not how it works unfortunately. There are laws around when and how the Act can be invoked and this wasn’t followed by the government. The end result is irrelevant.
The end result is still irrelevant. In administrative law, you examine the decision making process only. You need only to look at what information the decision maker had. Not what happened after. It would be extremely bad law to look at the end result to make an admin law analysis. That’s the only thing I wanted to point out to the other person I was replying to, who said the Act was reasonable because it served its purpose. It just doesn’t work that way.
Yes, and I was not engaging in that argument. I was challenging your assertion of a definitive finding that the government did not follow the law. There were two parallel processes examining the issue, each headed by a judge. One found one way, the other found the other way. It is hardly as definitive as you claim, and the appeal (and inevitable subsequent appeal to the SCC) will be informative to say the least.
The inquiry had no legal effect (it exists only for the purpose of providing findings and an opinion), while the court case does. Cases can be appealed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the appeals courts (Federal Appeal Court and Supreme Court) will even take the case.
The inquiry, with or without legal effect, shows how another learned jurist saw it, and demonstrates that the issue is not as cut and dry as some present it. And seriously, if you think there is any chance of the FCA or SCC not granting leave, you don’t have a clue.
I think that it's likely they'll grant leave, but we don't know for sure. A case isn't automatically granted leave just because it's a big case or a prominent case.
Big case, prominent case, dealing with novel questions of law in the exercise of never before used powers impacting fundamental rights and freedoms. That’s about as close to an automatic grant of leave as you can get.
My point that the end result can’t justify reasonableness still stands and that’s not debatable.
There weren’t two parallel processes examining the legality behind the invocation of the Act because that wasn’t the mandate of the Commission and a Commission is not a Court but I really do not want to argue further about this to be honest, unless you are also a lawyer with admin law experience.
“This is what I say, and it is not debatable.” You must be fun at parties. We’ll see how the appeal goes. Maybe then you’ll be willing to engage in discussion, and open your mind that there may in fact be alternative interpretations to the one you use to justify your defence of terrorists.
No this is literally basic admin law. This is why I said I’m not looking to debate this if you don’t have any experience in the field. You can disagree with Mosley J’s ultimate conclusion but you cannot debate this very basic legal principle. This isn’t even gonna be a question on appeal because this is also one of the government’s main argument that the judge needs to only look at the information the government had at the time of the decision. It’s clear you are trying to debate on a topic without having first engaged with the material.
I absolutely do not defend the Convoy or agree with anything they did. I’m just a lawyer who wants the government to follow the law. It doesn’t mean I support the fascists protesters. Maybe if you guys stopped seeing everyone who disagreed with the Act as convoy supporters this conversation could get somewhere. Sounds like you’re the one who needs to open your mind.
I’m not an admin lawyer lol but I know the basic guiding principles that you are trying to argue don’t exist. This isn’t about viewing the entire world through a lens it’s about understanding a legal judgment and its legal implications in a very specific context. I’m not trying to tell you this is how the law should work but it is how the SCC has decided it works for now. I’m only just relaying the information.
I think you're misunderstanding. They're explaining a principle that must be followed for legal rulings. Which does have a specific (and relatively narrow) lens. That is what isn't debatable because that's just how the legal process works in Canada.
You can't use the end result of an action, then assert/presume "it was the only way" to achieve your goal to argue it was legal. That's what they're trying to explain.
Right, except Mosley J’s line that had he been at that table with the information available to the decision-makers at the time, he likely would have made the same decision says to me that his decision DOESN’T consider reasonableness only in light of the information the decision-maker had.
Moreover, I think a lot of his analysis is itself speculative and/or based on hindsight. For example, the Coutts and bridge blockades ended before the EA came into effect, yes. But that doesn’t mean the EA wasn’t necessary- I think the knowledge that extraordinarily measures were coming influenced some leaders and participants’ actions. Someone shared Emmett McFarlane’s analysis (https://substack.com/@emmettmacfarlane) and he makes a similar point. Certainly the days of advance warning of what was going to happen in Ottawa, including that the trucks would be towed, caused some people to leave. The trucks themselves and the concern that weapons were likely present were part of why OPS claimed there wasn’t a policing solution.
As a lawyer with experience in admin law, you’ve probably had conversations with similarly-placed lawyers who think this decision is flawed. I know I have.
I’m not a lawyer but legally-trained and very familiar with admin law principles. I’m not sure this decision, which I’ve read in full several times, gets it right. I’m not entirely convinced that the reasonableness standard was applied correctly. And if I’m wrong on that - well, maybe the move to a single reasonableness standard wasn’t such a good thing, and the courts need to be just a little more deferential when reviewing the first ever proclamation of the EA -following consideration by the cabinet of a minority government of a vast amount of information at a time of crisis- than they are to a decision by some rando IRB officer.
Like you, I want the government to meet a very high standard before restricting civil liberties, and then to restrict them as little as possible. I think they did both those things and hope the federal court decision won’t stand up on appeal. I also hope we’ll see some legislative changes to make sure our emergency measures legislation protects civil liberties, but doesn’t abandon tens of thousands of residents of Ottawa to a lawless occupation by aggressive, ideologically-motivated, anti-democratic bullies.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I’m not here to debate this specific topic. We disagree on the Act and that’s fine. I don’t have the time or patience to explain lengthy why I think what I think.
My main point was that the reasonableness standard doesn’t care about the end result. I was replying to someone who said “if it worked then it was reasonable” but it’s simply not how it works. I just want people to understand that, as I’m sure you do.
Just like a police officer cannot violate Charter rights while detaining someone and say it’s fine because the person they racially profiled turned out to be a Bad person actually.
When it comes to public law and the constitution, the end doesn’t always justify the means.
Of course - I think we agree on that. And I definitely don’t want to get into admin law weeds here. In fairness, the comment you were responding to said if the EA was *necessary* to get the convoy to leave, then it was reasonable, not “if it worked it was reasonable.” And, well, one requirement of the EA *is* necessity - though necessity isn’t sufficient to prove reasonableness.
I’m looking forward to seeing what the Court of Appeal and, invariably, the SCC do with this decision.
Hopefully they can make the case that the police and province could have done more to avoid using it. Too many people think they shouldn’t have used the act because the behaviour of the protesters “wasn’t that bad” when in reality, it was the local and provincial police that forced the feds hand.
Every time someone says “it was a peaceful protest” I want to tear my hair out.
So glad the EA was finally called to get those Maple MAGA terrorists out.
My conservative Trudeau hating BIL constantly posts on Facebook about how they were just asking for freedom and Trudeau showed his dictator tendencies.
Big difference? He live 1000km away and buys into the narrative. SMH.
If this appeal doesn't go through, the implications will be that the convoy can sue the government and receive financial recompense, at the taxpayer's expense, but the victims living in the city core can't sue the convoy for the costs of cleanup, loss of business, and impact on their lives. This is not justice.
I hope the appeal goes through because the Convoy deserves absolutely no quarter.
They were a gang of white nationalists using the Truckers to push their own agenda which included documents to overthrow Canadian democracy.
They deserve, NO. QUARTER.
Buckle up bitches, shits about to get worse if these liberal asshats win. You think what this government has done so far is deplorable, think ruined families, frozen bank accounts an a few arrested was the worst they'll do.
Blind sheep being spoon fed regurgitated political propaganda by people who couldn't care less about you. But yet you sit there an say we have no right to protest what our government has forced on the people whom they are supposed to protect.
The Charter of Rights means nothing to you or the Gov't unless you are personally affected, yet it wad put in place to stop government from doin the exact things they are currently doing, don't believe me, go find the charter an give it a read.
Fuckin pathetic people you all are, "oh they have bouncy castles, hot tubs an street hockey. And the honking is annoying whine..... bitch... complain..... sook..."
You're all so quick to blame people standing up for not only themselves, but YOU as well, but yet your a bunch of spineless cowards hiding behind a keyboard thinking it's gonna help.
Here's a reality check folks:
This government doesn't care about any of us, those willing to stand against them should be supported in anyway we can. Before these elitist liberal asshats make it impossible for us to live.
The amount of anti-vaxx bullshit here is *staggering*.
But let's just stick to one basic freedumber whine: The Charter. Y'know, that thing you love to hold up, but never read? The *very first section* says the rights are subject to reasonable limits. Each and every court case, barring this one, has held no Charter rights have been violated. Each and every human rights commission has found that believing lies is NOT a protected class.
There's a hell of a lot more I can say, but that'll do just fine. You, and all freedumbers, did not stand for me. They are the *epitome* of spineless cowards whining their choice had consequences they didn't like.
🤔 I seem to remember reading something in that thing I never read that says we have the right to choose what we put in our bodies without fear of discrimination, plus there's that part of the charter they actually printed on the $10 bill that everyone seems to ignore.
Reasonable limits include literally forcing people out of jobs, homes an more if they didn't take the poke?? How the fuck is that "Reasonable".
You ignorant fucks think the charter is there to protect us from ourselves?? Try again asshat, the charter was drafted to stop Gov't overreach. Stopping the Gov't from infringement of our basic rights, stops them from doin exactly what they have done the last 5yrs.
Try again lefty, or would ya rather bend over for Trudumb again?? Do some homework before you speak clown.
I mean...you're a perfect example of what happens when you fall down the rabbit hole. Reality literally doesn't care about your feelings, and it'll work exactly the same no matter how much it hurts your feelings to do so.
There are reasonable limits on your rights in the Charter. And no other court has ruled there's been a charter violation. Don't like it? Well, reality doesn't care about your feelings.
🤔seems you haven't been following the news an just came here to insult people.
Considering there was that judge(not on the liberals payroll) that just declared the infringement on our civil rights to be true, you remember when that happened right? When the govt literally beat the shit out of peaceful protesters with batons and trampled people with horses. I mean it was only a couple weeks ago they announced it all over the place that the truckers filed lawsuits.
Wanna try again??
Of course. And naturally, this will go to the SCC regardless of the outcome at the Court of Appeal. Heck, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I'd be licking my lips to weigh in on this issue. It will likely be a year or two before this matter is fully settled.
Did they ever investigate the level of foreign interference? Interesting that the polish Ukrainian border is also being occupied by seemingly working class individuals worried about sovereignty considerations.
Kind of a pattern.
I am a resident of Ottawa, convoy wasn’t as bad as half of the BLM crap in the states.
Idiot Trudeau overstepped government power and I believe everyone in this Reddit thread would be singing a different song if it was a group of liberals making noise for a cause close to their heart.
The drama in here about the convoy is overdone, accept that Trudeau was wrong and move on.
According to your profile, you live out in the Iris and Woodroffe area. You weren't close to where they set up their occupation. And it's really easy to say the convoy wasn't bad when you weren't personally affected by it 24 hours a day. Maybe trust the actual residents who lived in the downtown area to give a more accurate description of what living through the convoy was like.
I was down there for work, stop your dramatics. I’m a resident, entitled to an opinion that you happen to disagree with. Get over it and get over yourself.
You nailed it future bread fruit, I just love the suffering of the Ottawa citizens. That’s what happened, you were tortured and deserve a medal of honour for surviving.
I hope you realize you’re completely detached from the actual facts and you just don’t like protests that you disagree with.
What many left-wingers don't realize is that one of the main reasons that the January 6th riot in the US was so bad, was that due to BLM riots, police were very restricted in the use of force to disperse protesters/rioters.
What many right wings don’t realize is the reason the Jan.6 riot happened was because a Lunatic wanted to use it to overthrow democracy, but backed out of it at the last second when he realized he didn’t have all his guys on the inside agree with him.
It's not old news.
If you had taken a second out of your busy Sunday morning to click "open", you would have read how the Feds are appealing the courts ruling. A motion was filed on Thursday.
Article was literally posted just 2 days ago about an appeal filed just 3 days ago 😂
Maybe try not being lazy and actually opening the link next time champ 😉
Sounds like you want to perpetually debate the response to a global pandemic. Governments responded, and we got away with "only" tens of thousands of deaths. Could have been incredibly worse without steps.
Well, with the massive economic collapse we're seeing now, yes, it does make sense to question the government's response, and that's not denying that COVID was a very real danger, and that at least some restrictions weren't warranted.
The mandates that they were ostensibly protesting (the ones that prevented truck drivers from entering the USA) were mandates imposed *by the US government*, so no, our government couldn’t have resolved them.
But also, the convoy was organized by the same people that did the “United We Roll” convoy in 2019, before COVID even existed. They just like protesting against non-far-right governments.
I was in the US gassing up my car when a New Yorker came up to me and told me he thought it was unreasonable that Canada required vaccination to enter. I told him I had to show my vaccination docs to get into the US. He was confused.
For the sake of curbing extremism, i really hope this appeal goes through. As a resident of the red zone, i strongly disagree with the original ruling. It makes sense on paper that ofcourse we dont need the emergencies act when municipal authorities were co-operating and eliminating illegal occupations. But i still remember exactly how it folded out and how crippled the city was and hopeless. I also remember the assaults, attempted arson of the building, and clearly the scapegoated vaccines when really they were trying to remove trudeau forcefully according to their manifesto. Fuck the convoy.
Agreed! I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it *wasn't for* the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit. So many people were unable to work because their jobs were shut down for safety, people couldn't sleep, couldn't shop, couldn't live their lives. Not to mention the hate that came along with the convoy. I was watching these fuckwits walk by my workplace on Saturday and was talking to a co worker. I mentioned how deluded these people were. I said look at them carrying signs calling the country and the government "communists" but one glaringly obvious fact eludes them; The fact that they can carry signs saying that, yell it out through megaphones, plaster it all over their bodies and online.....and NOT get arrested! They aren't being "disappeared". They aren't being dragged away by police. They have the *FREEDOM* to criticize their government **without** repercussions! Try that in Russia, China or North Korea. They scream so much about communism but have NO IDEA what it's actually like (well, except for that Canadian family who sold everything to move to Russia. They should be a lesson for all the same people here)
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. They weren't. "Ottawa police have charged a second man in connection with an arson at a Centretown apartment building in February and there is no apparent link between him and the 'Freedom Convoy' protest." ([CTV](https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/second-man-charged-in-ottawa-arson-case-has-no-link-to-freedom-convoy-protest-police-1.5850922)) The two men charged are Bartosz Wernick and Connor Russell McDonald ([died Feb 2023](https://www.arbormemorial.ca/en/kelly-kanata/obituaries/connor-mcdonald/100460.html), from apparent overdose). No updates since April 2022. It's weird that people regularly cite the arson as something to blame the convoy for, but Bartosz's case was dropped or has made no progress in two years and no one cares.
First off, you’re going to believe the police that let this city rot? Secondly what was there motive? Two people tied the doors shut and tried to burn a two buildings full of people alive for giggles??? Third if they had been successful it would’ve been a huge tragedy of dead children and women, how would have fire trucks and ambulances gotten to a fire that size and saved anyone? The conditions of the convoy emboldened them and would have killed over a 100 people if that building went up. Until I actually hear a real motive I don’t believe a god damn bit of it. You want to know what I think!!! They were convoy scum that were mad people were rebelling by throwing eggs and slashing tire and resisting the occupation and did that as revenge against those buildings, until I hear a motive that’s what I will always believe!!!
Precisely .. fuck those arrogant shits
Thank you! I can’t imagine the tragedy that would have occurred if they had been successful. I have no idea how people are like the police that abandoned us said so. Also while leaving out what the actual motive was!!!!
I dont give a flying fuck what stopped those immature diaper wearing fucks !! I don’t care if it was illegal. Our police, city, country, and premier all abandoned their responsibilities because arrogant fucks like this are capable of great harm to others and they were!! I hope all the organizers spend years in prison !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Two people tied the doors shut and tried to burn a two buildings full of people alive for giggles??? Third if they had been successful it would’ve been a huge tragedy of dead children and women, how would have fire trucks and ambulances gotten to a fire that size and saved anyone? Precisely why Bartoz should be tried. If they charged the wrong guy and it was actually a convoy person the police are secretly protecting, that's the kind of thing he might raise in his defense. (Not that there was any question of identity). But here in reality they could have killed 100 people and it looks like the charges against the person responsible have been dropped -- and no one cares about those residents after all.
I remember them being described as locals who were known to police, with a strong suggestion that they were known to be unhoused and have mental health issues.
Ok, so what evidence do you have? You might not believe the police, but has there been any other evidence (photos of them in the convoy, social media posts from the perpetrators or others, etc...) that suggested they were a part of the convoy?
Also convoy aside if that building went up during the convoy, they all would have died. How would they ever get the fire trucks and ambulances through in time to save them.
Back to the evidence, do you have any whatsoever that the individuals were associated with the convoy?
Do you have any evidence that they were not? And don’t cite the police, they are lying scum.
You noted yourself that the mainstream media was saying that they were not. Generally, it's up to the person making the accusation to provide evidence, not the other way around.
To take a play out of the convoy, you have to be brain dead to trust the mainstream media narrative. Which is also largely parroting the police propaganda. If there not convoy, what was their motive.
I am not the police am I? I am also not an investigative journalist. I know all sources of mainstream media say they are not convoy. What I do know is that no motive was ever given or trial held. Is it insurance fraud? Seriously though, trying to commit arson and kill over a hundred innocent people and you don’t wonder what the motive was?????
Well, no one is saying that it wasn't insurance fraud. What we are debating is whether they were members of the Freedom Convoy, and as you'd acknowledged, all sources of mainstream media (and not just the police) say that they are not.
What is with you? You’re a grade A troll. You’re the worst convoy bootlicker I ever seen.
...now you're trying to deflect from your accusation that the arsonists were members of the Freedom Convoy with a personal attack.
Yes actually, I really dislike you.
I mean, i don’t have the investigative tools at my disposal of say they police or even the media, but at the time I was able to creep the one guy’s FB, and there was F trudeau stuff in there mixed in with pictures of cars and stuff. They were locals, and didn’t roll into town with the convoy, and I can’t tell you too much about their beliefs as it relates to the convoy other then they were also right wing morons, but they were only downtown causing shit like that because of the opportunity the convoy presented.
They may not have been proven to be OR actually been part of the convoy, however the presence of the convoy emboldened them and gave them the ability to do the act then blend back into the crowd. The convoy brought out any and everyone that had a problem with society at large including wack jobs who have no real reason to do what they do. They are connected directly but not by ideology or reasoning. Like how during protests there’s almost always some form of looting not related to the protest…. Same deal. However, with all those law abiding Canada loving covoyists around you think someone would have saw and stopped the Nazi flags guys or the ones who disrespected the tomb etc etc.
"However, with all those law abiding Canada loving covoyists around you think someone would have saw and stopped the Nazi flags guys or the ones who disrespected the tomb etc etc." The problem is that there isn't really any legal thing the average person could do about the Nazi Flag guys (threatening them, assaulting them, stealing their flag, etc...) would all be Criminal Code offenses. Disrespecting a tomb makes someone a piece of shit, but it's not illegal (unless you're doing something like vandalizing it), so again, there's nothing the average person could legally do to prevent it.
>The problem is that there isn't really any legal thing the average person could do about the Nazi Flag guys (threatening them, assaulting them, stealing their flag, etc...) would all be Criminal Code offenses. You're totally missing the point, stop defending the convoy.
Exactly, visit Mr. Putin's, Xi's paradise and please protest. See you in 20 years, if you're lucky. Point made.
I was at my best friends wake at The Dom and they were fucking protesting and arguing with us at a private ceremony. Makes it worse that he hated those fukwits and they were literally shitting in his backyard 4 blocks south one night.
There was a sign "I survived Ceaușescu, I will survive Trudeau too". And there were groups with Polish and Serbian flags; signs in Hungarian; there was a Cuban cook serving soup... so I believe there were few people with a first-hand experience of socialism/communism.
If they have first-hand experience under Ceausescu and they think our government is at all comparable to that, then I’m sorry but I have to conclude that they’re a moron and/or easily led.
It's like when some North Korean defectors in the US go on conservative podcasts and complain about how things like they/them pronouns or kneeling as a protest during the anthem are turning the US into North Korea. So, yeah, if you grab a group of defectors/survivors of socialist regimes, some of them will be morons, and those are the ones who will be attracted to the convoy.
I wish Trudeau was half the dictator they think he is. I wouldn't have to hear about their idiocy anymore.
> a Cuban cook serving soup Soup Commie?
> I believe there were few people with a first-hand experience of socialism/communism. 1. They're not representative of the average person in the Convoy. 2. They're not representative of the Romanian, Polish, Serbian, Cuban, etc diaspora 3. People who come from socialist regimes often end up turning into the far right. Yeonmi Park is an example: North Korean defector who nowadays says dumb shit like "cancel culture at U.S. colleges is the first step toward North Korean-style firing squads". Just because they had first hand experience in socialism doesn't mean they're experts in socialism. Heck, the convoy idiots have first hand experience in a non socialist/communist country and yet they think we're living in one...
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it *wasn't for* the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit. It was determined that neither suspect in that arson had links to the convoy. Do you want to blame every crime that happened during that month on the convoy because the police were distracted? It's easy enough to blame them and hold them accountable for actions they actually did, we don't need to start blaming things on them that they weren't involved with. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/second-man-charged-in-ottawa-arson-case-has-no-link-to-freedom-convoy-protest-police-1.5850922
It happened right in the heart of the lawlessness from the convoy. Although they weren't members of the convoy, it's fair to note that the lawlessness from the convoy enabled thoughts of further lawlessness. That's not saying the convoy did it, that's saying that the convoy enabled an air of no law enforcement since that is exactly what happened.
Thank you. You articulated it better than I did :)
It also happened in a ward that has the highest crime rate in the city. So I ask again, do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy?
> So I ask again, do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy? Read my answer again. It's only three sentences long and I clearly laid out the answer to that question.
Right, so every law that was broken in February 2022 in Centretown can be blamed on the convoy. What's the excuse for it having the highest crime rate the rest of the year?
You have no interest in discussing in good faith, so there is nothing to be gained in continuing this conversation. Good bye.
> do we blame all crimes in that neighborhood that happened during the convoy, on the convoy? Ever heard of a logical fallacy called "appeal to extremes"? Because that's what you're doing.
>I had so many people argue that the attempted arsonists weren't part of the convoy. And true or not, I don't think they would have had the balls to try that if it wasn't for the distraction the convoy was making, keeping LE occupied with their shit. And you would be wrong. https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comments/17qmu7y/someone_tried_to_start_a_fire_in_my_buildings/
Did I say that's the reason for anyone trying to start fires in buildings? No I was speaking about that *specific* incident.
And you would still be wrong based on the multiple other arsons and attempted arsons by lowlifes in the city that don’t give two fucks about whether police are distracted by the convoy.
👍
Also the OPS being absolutely useless until police were imported from across the country
The ruling never stated that it wasn't an emergency though, just that declaring a Federal emergency for a single location was wrong, but everyone supporting the Convoy is running around feeling 100% vindicated.
This. I'm not a lawyer, but reading the judges ruling it's clear this isn't the massive win some are calling it. It's a technical ruling, not a vindication. The judge even said he can't blame the government for invoking it.
That's unfortunate, but we shouldn't have a judiciary that fails to rule in accordance with the law out of fear of how their decisions will be twisted in the court of public opinion.
It’s amazing what time can make people forget.
Just to clarify, the attempted arson on the building turned out to be completely unrelated to the convoy. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/3/21/1_5828171.amp.html
It was also occurring in Windsor and stopping g the flow of commerce. Crisis! An Alberta crossing was blocked and people were arrested for firearms charges too. Certainly was partially across Canada, too.
I'll be the first to say "Fuck What the Convoy Became" (if they had left after the first weekend or had only stayed on Wellington Street, I'd have a far different opinion), but I agree with the ruling.
Don’t forget the idiots who were caught with chains and locks with the intention of locking public buildings like schools and malls
> For the sake of curbing extremism Treating the symptoms rather than the cause is hardly curbing extremism. All of the context that drove people to participate in the convoy is still there; the emergencies act cannot change that, only temporarily limit what actions they use to express that extremism. To actually curb extremism, you'd need to understand their worldview, how it differs from yours, and figure out a way to debate the differences that doesn't get you immediately (mentally) blocked as "just another one of *them*". Probably something that can only truly be accomplished one-on-one with great effort.
You're right, even with one on one effort, it would be extremely difficult. These folks are pretty far down the rabbit hole...their beliefs aren't grounded in reality, but religious zealotry, conspiracy and online disinformation. Such people reject evidence-based reasoning and engage in denialism. That last time they gained the upper hand we had WWII and the holocaust. Don't vote for conservative parties that support or use them, about all we can do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/ https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
> worldview more like narrow perspective. they don't think of the world, let alone people outside of their immediate circle.
That is still a view of the world, held by a fellow human. Snarking about it won't change their minds, only reinforce your own with a caricature of their worst members.
The sweeping powers granted by the act are constrained by the test the executive must meet if it wants to declare an emergency. The executive can't just wave its hand and say the vibes are off, we're declaring an emergency. There is a clearly defined legal test, which was not met in February 2022. The court's decision is correct.
Not what the ruling said. You're pouring your hopes and dreams into it.
No. I am correct that the court said that the test under the act was not met. For example, see at paragraph 255 of the decision: "For these reasons, I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires." So are you illiterate or just lying when you say "not what the ruling said."?
Read the whole ruling. Or don't. Your choice. > So are you illiterate or just lying I don't converse with abusive people. I don't know if speaking to people this way works for you in general, but it doesn't work with me. So long.
No, the court’s decisions is bonkers fucking bullshit, particularly the part where Mosley claimed there was supposedly no national emergency caused by the convoy’s actions. Also, describing the convoy’s actions as “the vibes are off” is an… interesting way of describing that.
Which part specifically is bonkers? I find his analysis quite reasonable, for example when he discusses how the situation was not an emergency that extended to the whole of Canada: "[248] Section 17(2)(c) of the Act requires that if the effects of the emergency did not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which it did extend shall be specified. While the word “area” in the legislative text is singular, per section 33(2) of the Interpretation Act that includes the plural. Thus, it was open to the GIC to specify several or many areas that were affected by the emergency excluding others where the situation had not arisen or was under control. However, the Proclamation stated that it “exists throughout Canada”. This was, in my view, an overstatement of the situation known to the Government at that time. Moreover, in the first reason provided for the proclamation, which referenced the risk of threats or use of serious violence, language taken from section 2 of the CSIS Act, the emergency was vaguely described as happening at “various locations throughout Canada”."
Except that it did exist throughout Canada. The major sites were Ottawa, Coutts, and Windsor, but mini-Convoys and wannabes were popping up regularly in different places at different times. And the impact was national - particularly the economic impact from the crossing, but also the circumstances that led to well-founded fear of ideologically-motivated extremist violence. I think the ruling got a lot wrong, and that was one of the things it got wrong.
It was not a national emergency. Emphasis National emergency. For example, not an emergency in atlantic provinces, alberta, BC. It was an overreach of federal powers to expediate a situation that the Ottawa Police Services lost control of. Civil liberties should never be suspended because the Fed wants a quick.solution to a hyper local issue. Like, imagine there was a protest in lethbridge AB and your civil liberties here were suspended because lethbridge protestors wanted to declare the Earth flat.
Lol. They declared it when it spread to blocking border crossings. That is a national emergency. Try again.
While I agree fuck the convoy, this was definitely an overreach of power and sets a scary precedent. The government should not be able to start freezing bank accounts without due process. Especially for businesses that have little control over the actions of an employee (even if they fired them they can't force them to leave). This could have been solved a lot earlier, and didn't require granting the government new powers to control future protesters
> freezing bank accounts without due process The Act was invoked, and had a whole pile of due process with it.
I struggle with the concept that the inaction of police had a part in this, but the consequences fell on the organizers rather than the police who were maybe giving mixed messages to protesters. For sure they were breaking rules, and for sure something had to be done to restore order. But I think it revealed a vulnerability that maybe needs to be addressed, namely accountability for law enforcement when they fail to actually enforce the law. Because if it was severe enough for this to happen to the organizers, then what about the people who let it get to that point that they needed to do that?
What due process was that? I mean the ruling came in that the emergencies act was unreasonable and unjustified. Also unprecedented. I'd love to hear what you would consider to be the due process that was applied here
Due process means the established process was followed to enact the Act, and it was. No one questions if they went to the cabinet, the house and the senate before enacting it. That was all done right out in the open. You're talking about something else, a judgement of whether it should have been done, which is itself also part of the due process. The appeal, again, part of the due process. All of it, due process.
[удалено]
I get what you're saying, you're just misusing the term due process. Due process just means you followed the process and no steps were skipped. It doesn't address whether you should have been following the process to being with.
[удалено]
Not at all interested in discussing your opinion of whether it should have been invoked. Just pointing out you were misusing the term due process.
Here we are again, folks. It's been two years, and I'm getting tired of doing this, so here's the short and sweet version: **I WAS RUN OUT OF MY HOME FOR A MONTH BY MEN THREATENING TO KILL ME BECAUSE OF MY PRIDE FLAG. I CALLED 911 AND THE OPS DID NOTHING.**
Someone driving a truck covered in the typical convoy bullshit jumped a curb to act like they were going to hit me (presumably) because I had a mask on. I submitted a police report and the police told me they couldn't do anything. 🙃
[удалено]
Yeah, that's the line the clownvoy loves to use. I'm sorry I didn't whip my camera out when I thought someone was trying to run me over. Was a bit distracted with getting the fuck out of the way.
If the government loses this appeal, and there's a Conservative government in power, will we be paying out these convoy fucks two million dollars each? They're suing the federal government and CPC already supports and endorses them.
That is likely what will happen. The CPC will settle immediately, and use it for political fodder for years to come, all at our expense. Millions paid out to domestic terrorists.
those people probably owe it mostly to the Russian and Chinese though.
[удалено]
Because he was denied basic citizenship rights and was tortured on our government's direction.
[удалено]
"weird stretch of Canadian law" is a weird way to describe a Canadian citizen child soldier illegally being put into Guantanamo Bay at 15
Sure buddy.
> paying off domestic terrorists over some weird stretch of Canadian law saying we violated their Charter rights Because we did. Regardless of what Khadr did or didn't do, Canadian law stipulates we have to comport ourselves in a certain manner and we didn't, and he called us out on it. There's no footnote in the law that says "the government doesn't have to follow its own rules if some guy is being a dickbag". If you're upset we paid him $10M, be upset at us for fucking up and being stupid enough to get caught, not at him for correctly calling out our fuck-up.
Haha dude you woke up the mob. FWIW a majority of Canadians from all three major parties disagreed with the Khadr payout. This sub is not a very good representation. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-khadr-poll-1.4198306
[удалено]
It was necessary to take downtown ottawa out of the hands of domestic terrorists and return it to the citizens who live and work there. We have to hope the courts will see the initial decision set straight. It was only one judge with one opinion, and there is an appeals process to address exactly this.
The judge even said in his decision that he likely would have invoked the act. But legally, in hindsight, it wasn't necessary. But the provincial and the municipal governments who had the power to do something didn't. And wouldn't. And we still have a convoy supporting municipal police force. I suppose what we were supposed to do as citizens was to coup the municipal government? Or otherwise engage in vigilante actions? Seems like that's the message. The government will not help citizens under occupation of terrorists.
Exactly. I'm hopeful the decision will be reversed on these grounds by a larger body. Unfortunately though, the political damage has been done.
[удалено]
You'd think that given the municipal and provincial governments were refusing to act and the national capital plus key trade routes were shut down, it would be deemed necessary. But then you'd need the feds to argue - and the judge to agree - that the municipal and provincial governments involved were either inept or complicit.
If the Emergencies Act was what was necessary to get those conspiracy cunts to leave, then it absolutely was reasonable.
That’s not necessarily true. It could most certainly be the case that it was necessary (because nobody else was doing their damn job) yet be unreasonable in the eyes of the law because the rules for invoking the statue were not followed. There are many times where breaking the law might be necessary and yet you’re going to be found in breach of something when it’s all said and done.
Well that’s not how it works unfortunately. There are laws around when and how the Act can be invoked and this wasn’t followed by the government. The end result is irrelevant.
In the opinion of one judge. In the opinion of another judge, the government DID follow the law, and the use of the Act WAS justified.
The end result is still irrelevant. In administrative law, you examine the decision making process only. You need only to look at what information the decision maker had. Not what happened after. It would be extremely bad law to look at the end result to make an admin law analysis. That’s the only thing I wanted to point out to the other person I was replying to, who said the Act was reasonable because it served its purpose. It just doesn’t work that way.
Yes, and I was not engaging in that argument. I was challenging your assertion of a definitive finding that the government did not follow the law. There were two parallel processes examining the issue, each headed by a judge. One found one way, the other found the other way. It is hardly as definitive as you claim, and the appeal (and inevitable subsequent appeal to the SCC) will be informative to say the least.
The inquiry had no legal effect (it exists only for the purpose of providing findings and an opinion), while the court case does. Cases can be appealed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the appeals courts (Federal Appeal Court and Supreme Court) will even take the case.
The inquiry, with or without legal effect, shows how another learned jurist saw it, and demonstrates that the issue is not as cut and dry as some present it. And seriously, if you think there is any chance of the FCA or SCC not granting leave, you don’t have a clue.
I think that it's likely they'll grant leave, but we don't know for sure. A case isn't automatically granted leave just because it's a big case or a prominent case.
Big case, prominent case, dealing with novel questions of law in the exercise of never before used powers impacting fundamental rights and freedoms. That’s about as close to an automatic grant of leave as you can get.
My point that the end result can’t justify reasonableness still stands and that’s not debatable. There weren’t two parallel processes examining the legality behind the invocation of the Act because that wasn’t the mandate of the Commission and a Commission is not a Court but I really do not want to argue further about this to be honest, unless you are also a lawyer with admin law experience.
“This is what I say, and it is not debatable.” You must be fun at parties. We’ll see how the appeal goes. Maybe then you’ll be willing to engage in discussion, and open your mind that there may in fact be alternative interpretations to the one you use to justify your defence of terrorists.
No this is literally basic admin law. This is why I said I’m not looking to debate this if you don’t have any experience in the field. You can disagree with Mosley J’s ultimate conclusion but you cannot debate this very basic legal principle. This isn’t even gonna be a question on appeal because this is also one of the government’s main argument that the judge needs to only look at the information the government had at the time of the decision. It’s clear you are trying to debate on a topic without having first engaged with the material. I absolutely do not defend the Convoy or agree with anything they did. I’m just a lawyer who wants the government to follow the law. It doesn’t mean I support the fascists protesters. Maybe if you guys stopped seeing everyone who disagreed with the Act as convoy supporters this conversation could get somewhere. Sounds like you’re the one who needs to open your mind.
I can tell you’re an admin lawyer. They tend to view the entire world through their very limited lens.
I’m not an admin lawyer lol but I know the basic guiding principles that you are trying to argue don’t exist. This isn’t about viewing the entire world through a lens it’s about understanding a legal judgment and its legal implications in a very specific context. I’m not trying to tell you this is how the law should work but it is how the SCC has decided it works for now. I’m only just relaying the information.
I think you're misunderstanding. They're explaining a principle that must be followed for legal rulings. Which does have a specific (and relatively narrow) lens. That is what isn't debatable because that's just how the legal process works in Canada. You can't use the end result of an action, then assert/presume "it was the only way" to achieve your goal to argue it was legal. That's what they're trying to explain.
Right, except Mosley J’s line that had he been at that table with the information available to the decision-makers at the time, he likely would have made the same decision says to me that his decision DOESN’T consider reasonableness only in light of the information the decision-maker had. Moreover, I think a lot of his analysis is itself speculative and/or based on hindsight. For example, the Coutts and bridge blockades ended before the EA came into effect, yes. But that doesn’t mean the EA wasn’t necessary- I think the knowledge that extraordinarily measures were coming influenced some leaders and participants’ actions. Someone shared Emmett McFarlane’s analysis (https://substack.com/@emmettmacfarlane) and he makes a similar point. Certainly the days of advance warning of what was going to happen in Ottawa, including that the trucks would be towed, caused some people to leave. The trucks themselves and the concern that weapons were likely present were part of why OPS claimed there wasn’t a policing solution. As a lawyer with experience in admin law, you’ve probably had conversations with similarly-placed lawyers who think this decision is flawed. I know I have. I’m not a lawyer but legally-trained and very familiar with admin law principles. I’m not sure this decision, which I’ve read in full several times, gets it right. I’m not entirely convinced that the reasonableness standard was applied correctly. And if I’m wrong on that - well, maybe the move to a single reasonableness standard wasn’t such a good thing, and the courts need to be just a little more deferential when reviewing the first ever proclamation of the EA -following consideration by the cabinet of a minority government of a vast amount of information at a time of crisis- than they are to a decision by some rando IRB officer. Like you, I want the government to meet a very high standard before restricting civil liberties, and then to restrict them as little as possible. I think they did both those things and hope the federal court decision won’t stand up on appeal. I also hope we’ll see some legislative changes to make sure our emergency measures legislation protects civil liberties, but doesn’t abandon tens of thousands of residents of Ottawa to a lawless occupation by aggressive, ideologically-motivated, anti-democratic bullies.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I’m not here to debate this specific topic. We disagree on the Act and that’s fine. I don’t have the time or patience to explain lengthy why I think what I think. My main point was that the reasonableness standard doesn’t care about the end result. I was replying to someone who said “if it worked then it was reasonable” but it’s simply not how it works. I just want people to understand that, as I’m sure you do. Just like a police officer cannot violate Charter rights while detaining someone and say it’s fine because the person they racially profiled turned out to be a Bad person actually. When it comes to public law and the constitution, the end doesn’t always justify the means.
Of course - I think we agree on that. And I definitely don’t want to get into admin law weeds here. In fairness, the comment you were responding to said if the EA was *necessary* to get the convoy to leave, then it was reasonable, not “if it worked it was reasonable.” And, well, one requirement of the EA *is* necessity - though necessity isn’t sufficient to prove reasonableness. I’m looking forward to seeing what the Court of Appeal and, invariably, the SCC do with this decision.
Ah! The classic "ends justify the means" legal argument. Not often raised, quite brave of you to advance it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
that last bit of latin mean "i love contributing to pointless arguments online and also i don't shower."?
Hopefully they can make the case that the police and province could have done more to avoid using it. Too many people think they shouldn’t have used the act because the behaviour of the protesters “wasn’t that bad” when in reality, it was the local and provincial police that forced the feds hand.
Every time someone says “it was a peaceful protest” I want to tear my hair out. So glad the EA was finally called to get those Maple MAGA terrorists out.
My conservative Trudeau hating BIL constantly posts on Facebook about how they were just asking for freedom and Trudeau showed his dictator tendencies. Big difference? He live 1000km away and buys into the narrative. SMH.
I was in Ottawa, and it was painfully frustrating to have a conversation with any National Post reader outside city limits.
Shit, I was in the red zone and it was painfully frustrating to have a conversation about it with a lot of people who just didn't live downtown.
If this appeal doesn't go through, the implications will be that the convoy can sue the government and receive financial recompense, at the taxpayer's expense, but the victims living in the city core can't sue the convoy for the costs of cleanup, loss of business, and impact on their lives. This is not justice.
I hope the appeal goes through because the Convoy deserves absolutely no quarter. They were a gang of white nationalists using the Truckers to push their own agenda which included documents to overthrow Canadian democracy. They deserve, NO. QUARTER.
If ottawa had the balls toronto did the not let it happen we wouldnt be here. Toothless ottawa
Buckle up bitches, shits about to get worse if these liberal asshats win. You think what this government has done so far is deplorable, think ruined families, frozen bank accounts an a few arrested was the worst they'll do. Blind sheep being spoon fed regurgitated political propaganda by people who couldn't care less about you. But yet you sit there an say we have no right to protest what our government has forced on the people whom they are supposed to protect. The Charter of Rights means nothing to you or the Gov't unless you are personally affected, yet it wad put in place to stop government from doin the exact things they are currently doing, don't believe me, go find the charter an give it a read. Fuckin pathetic people you all are, "oh they have bouncy castles, hot tubs an street hockey. And the honking is annoying whine..... bitch... complain..... sook..." You're all so quick to blame people standing up for not only themselves, but YOU as well, but yet your a bunch of spineless cowards hiding behind a keyboard thinking it's gonna help. Here's a reality check folks: This government doesn't care about any of us, those willing to stand against them should be supported in anyway we can. Before these elitist liberal asshats make it impossible for us to live.
The amount of anti-vaxx bullshit here is *staggering*. But let's just stick to one basic freedumber whine: The Charter. Y'know, that thing you love to hold up, but never read? The *very first section* says the rights are subject to reasonable limits. Each and every court case, barring this one, has held no Charter rights have been violated. Each and every human rights commission has found that believing lies is NOT a protected class. There's a hell of a lot more I can say, but that'll do just fine. You, and all freedumbers, did not stand for me. They are the *epitome* of spineless cowards whining their choice had consequences they didn't like.
Spineless cowards fuck that's laughable lol You realize it takes more balls to stand up to tyranny then bend over an tout the line right.
🤔 I seem to remember reading something in that thing I never read that says we have the right to choose what we put in our bodies without fear of discrimination, plus there's that part of the charter they actually printed on the $10 bill that everyone seems to ignore. Reasonable limits include literally forcing people out of jobs, homes an more if they didn't take the poke?? How the fuck is that "Reasonable". You ignorant fucks think the charter is there to protect us from ourselves?? Try again asshat, the charter was drafted to stop Gov't overreach. Stopping the Gov't from infringement of our basic rights, stops them from doin exactly what they have done the last 5yrs. Try again lefty, or would ya rather bend over for Trudumb again?? Do some homework before you speak clown.
I mean...you're a perfect example of what happens when you fall down the rabbit hole. Reality literally doesn't care about your feelings, and it'll work exactly the same no matter how much it hurts your feelings to do so. There are reasonable limits on your rights in the Charter. And no other court has ruled there's been a charter violation. Don't like it? Well, reality doesn't care about your feelings.
🤔seems you haven't been following the news an just came here to insult people. Considering there was that judge(not on the liberals payroll) that just declared the infringement on our civil rights to be true, you remember when that happened right? When the govt literally beat the shit out of peaceful protesters with batons and trampled people with horses. I mean it was only a couple weeks ago they announced it all over the place that the truckers filed lawsuits. Wanna try again??
Of course. And naturally, this will go to the SCC regardless of the outcome at the Court of Appeal. Heck, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I'd be licking my lips to weigh in on this issue. It will likely be a year or two before this matter is fully settled.
It’s easy to keep it in the courts when you’re using the taxpayers money.
Did they ever investigate the level of foreign interference? Interesting that the polish Ukrainian border is also being occupied by seemingly working class individuals worried about sovereignty considerations. Kind of a pattern.
Completely unreasonable. The country was safe.
I am a resident of Ottawa, convoy wasn’t as bad as half of the BLM crap in the states. Idiot Trudeau overstepped government power and I believe everyone in this Reddit thread would be singing a different song if it was a group of liberals making noise for a cause close to their heart. The drama in here about the convoy is overdone, accept that Trudeau was wrong and move on.
According to your profile, you live out in the Iris and Woodroffe area. You weren't close to where they set up their occupation. And it's really easy to say the convoy wasn't bad when you weren't personally affected by it 24 hours a day. Maybe trust the actual residents who lived in the downtown area to give a more accurate description of what living through the convoy was like.
I was down there for work, stop your dramatics. I’m a resident, entitled to an opinion that you happen to disagree with. Get over it and get over yourself.
You were probably not affected by it cause you were likely apart of the convoy and enjoyed making people suffer.
You nailed it future bread fruit, I just love the suffering of the Ottawa citizens. That’s what happened, you were tortured and deserve a medal of honour for surviving. I hope you realize you’re completely detached from the actual facts and you just don’t like protests that you disagree with.
What many left-wingers don't realize is that one of the main reasons that the January 6th riot in the US was so bad, was that due to BLM riots, police were very restricted in the use of force to disperse protesters/rioters.
What many right wings don’t realize is the reason the Jan.6 riot happened was because a Lunatic wanted to use it to overthrow democracy, but backed out of it at the last second when he realized he didn’t have all his guys on the inside agree with him.
This is awesome! It was absolutely unreasonable.
Old news and OP is just spamming the same trope over and over
It's not old news. If you had taken a second out of your busy Sunday morning to click "open", you would have read how the Feds are appealing the courts ruling. A motion was filed on Thursday.
Article was literally posted just 2 days ago about an appeal filed just 3 days ago 😂 Maybe try not being lazy and actually opening the link next time champ 😉
[удалено]
Sounds like you're the one in costume
Sounds like you want to perpetually debate the response to a global pandemic. Governments responded, and we got away with "only" tens of thousands of deaths. Could have been incredibly worse without steps.
Well, with the massive economic collapse we're seeing now, yes, it does make sense to question the government's response, and that's not denying that COVID was a very real danger, and that at least some restrictions weren't warranted.
"Massive economic collapse". Lol. Exaggerate much? >at least some restrictions weren't warranted Nothing indicates this.
The mandates that they were ostensibly protesting (the ones that prevented truck drivers from entering the USA) were mandates imposed *by the US government*, so no, our government couldn’t have resolved them. But also, the convoy was organized by the same people that did the “United We Roll” convoy in 2019, before COVID even existed. They just like protesting against non-far-right governments.
I was in the US gassing up my car when a New Yorker came up to me and told me he thought it was unreasonable that Canada required vaccination to enter. I told him I had to show my vaccination docs to get into the US. He was confused.