Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Additional here : I am not convinced that it is a wise decision from a political point of view for the current government to appeal that decision, as they have already stated they would. With the filing deadlines inherent in a Federal Court of Appeals and current delays before hearings before same, there is a strong possibility that a decision confirming the lower court, and thus calling the actions of the government illegal, would come down just as they are entering the next election.

 

[Jarnhamar]

and thus calling the actions of the government illegal, would come down just as they are entering the next election.

I don't think the Liberals would lose one vote over it.

 

[Maxman1]

Not really no. Skippy has been pp’s nickname from his own party for some time.

So it’s a bit confusing when people use it for Trudeau.

It's been Trudeau's nickname for much longer, predating Poilevre being elected party leader.

 

[Remius]

It's been Trudeau's nickname for much longer, predating Poilevre being elected party leader.

Lol. You have it way wrong. It’s the other way around.

PP was nicknamed that by his own caucus members. John Baird I think. Sometime between after 2004 when he was first elected. It wasn’t meant as an insult. Way before Trudeau was even a member of parliament.

Examples:

The Commons: ‘Way to go, Skippy’ - Macleans.ca

Yes, congratulations are in order on another day well diverted The Scene. It was for awhile there—no word of a lie—proving to be a fairly substantive day.

macleans.ca

‘Skippy’ aka MP Pierre Poilievre has sunk to new low

Over the course of his short, less than stellar political career, Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre has said a number of silly and really foolish things.

ottawasun.com

And even CBC kids has a primer on him. para 3.

https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/5-things-to-know-about-pierre-poilievre-canadas-new-conservative-party-lead

I mean, if you want to use PPs nickname when referring to Trudeau, I guess go for it but it’s weird.

But feel free to show me where Trudeau has been commonly referred to as Skippy besides here. He’s had a few names but not sure they have stuck. Little Potato by the Chinese?

 

[RangerRay]

An interesting analysis by Paul Wells.

Not justified and unreasonable

A narrow defeat for Trudeau on the Emergencies Act

paulwells.substack.com

This seems to confirm my feelings that if the police of jurisdiction and various levels of government didn’t act like a convention of bags of hammers, they could have cleaned the streets of Ottawa 3 1/2 weeks before the Feds wet themselves without resorting to the EMA.

 

[Eaglelord17]

As I said years ago, this was a provincial issue which the government chose to take on as a national one. The Federal Government chose to stick their nose out where it didn't belong.

Ontario should have been managing it, and Ford knew this. He also knew if he did nothing it would create issues for the Feds which is why they stuck their nose out. Aid to civil power was a much more justified response to the protests before the emergencies act was used. If that had failed there would have been much more of a argument to use the emergencies act.

Just because we have incompetent governments at all levels though we chose a inappropriate sludge hammer to deal with a small nail that was sticking up. From Fords perspective he won as no one blames him for any of that despite his weaponized incompetence being why it was such a big issue in the first place.

 

[Haggis]

I don't think the Liberals would lose one vote over it.

On the contrary. The Liberals will sell this as JT being "prime ministerial", decisive and determined to maintain the rule of law (well, these laws, anyways). This was his "just watch me" moment. Daddy would've been proud.

 

[lenaitch]

Here's the ruling; fill yer boots.

https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf

The Judge does discuss the issue of the 'authority' vs. 'capacity' of other governments and legislation to deal with events.

I find it interesting that, at [374], the Court stated:

"This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but ,rather, how it was applied in this instance."​

It will be interesting to see if this impacts the willingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case should it go that far.

I could be reading it wrong, but I did not interpret the ruling as saying the Emergency Order was 'ultra vires' and therefore unlawful but, rather, was unreasonable so didn't meet the conditions laid out in the Act.

Gah. I know one of the Applicants from years past.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Here's the ruling; fill yer boots.

https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf

The Judge does discuss the issue of the 'authority' vs. 'capacity' of other governments and legislation to deal with events.

I find it interesting that, at [374], the Court stated:

"This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but ,rather, how it was applied in this instance."​

It will be interesting to see if this impacts the willingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case should it go that far.

I could be reading it wrong, but I did not interpret the ruling as saying the Emergency Order was 'ultra vires' and therefore unlawful but, rather, was unreasonable so didn't meet the conditions laid out in the Act.

Gah. I know one of the Applicants from years past.

That is what I got: the Act itself is not unconstitutional. It’s application in this circumstance was.

 

[brihard]

Here's the ruling; fill yer boots.

https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf

The Judge does discuss the issue of the 'authority' vs. 'capacity' of other governments and legislation to deal with events.

I find it interesting that, at [374], the Court stated:

"This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but ,rather, how it was applied in this instance."​

It will be interesting to see if this impacts the willingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case should it go that far.

I could be reading it wrong, but I did not interpret the ruling as saying the Emergency Order was 'ultra vires' and therefore unlawful but, rather, was unreasonable so didn't meet the conditions laid out in the Act.

Gah. I know one of the Applicants from years past.

Ugh. God knows when I’m gonna have time to read all of this.

At first glance it looks like a major (predictable) part of the decision was the narrow definition of “threat to the security of Canada” as found in the CSIS act, and a requisite part of proclaiming a public order emergency. That will likely survive appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and eventually SCC if they agree to hear it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Lol. You have it way wrong. It’s the other way around.

PP was nicknamed that by his own caucus members. John Baird I think. Sometime between after 2004 when he was first elected. It wasn’t meant as an insult. Way before Trudeau was even a member of parliament.

Examples:

The Commons: ‘Way to go, Skippy’ - Macleans.ca

Yes, congratulations are in order on another day well diverted The Scene. It was for awhile there—no word of a lie—proving to be a fairly substantive day.

macleans.ca

‘Skippy’ aka MP Pierre Poilievre has sunk to new low

Over the course of his short, less than stellar political career, Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre has said a number of silly and really foolish things.

ottawasun.com

And even CBC kids has a primer on him. para 3.

https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/5-things-to-know-about-pierre-poilievre-canadas-new-conservative-party-lead

I mean, if you want to use PPs nickname when referring to Trudeau, I guess go for it but it’s weird.

But feel free to show me where Trudeau has been commonly referred to as Skippy besides here. He’s had a few names but not sure they have stuck. Little Potato by the Chinese?

The court said he was wrong on the EA and you want to argue about a nickname? Fine, you win. I won't call trudeau Skippy anymore.

 

[Winds]

Here's the ruling; fill yer boots.

https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf

The Judge does discuss the issue of the 'authority' vs. 'capacity' of other governments and legislation to deal with events.

I find it interesting that, at [374], the Court stated:

"This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but ,rather, how it was applied in this instance."​

It will be interesting to see if this impacts the willingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case should it go that far.

I could be reading it wrong, but I did not interpret the ruling as saying the Emergency Order was 'ultra vires' and therefore unlawful but, rather, was unreasonable so didn't meet the conditions laid out in the Act.

Gah. I know one of the Applicants from years past.

Section 72 of the judgment deals with the issue of ultra vires (look at the table of contents), the judge's conclusion is as follows:

[255] 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. Should I be found to have erred in that conclusion, I will proceed to discuss the threshold requirement that for a public order emergency to be declared it must meet the definition set out in section 16 of the Act.

The judge determined that the Emergencies Act itself is not unconstitutional, no party has argued that the act itself is unconstitutional though. Rather, the government's decision to invoke the powers granted in the act without sufficient justification (without a national emergency) was ruled as being "unreasonable" (aka objectively wrong) and "ultra vires" (outside of the law).

 

[Winds]

Ugh. God knows when I’m gonna have time to read all of this.

At first glance it looks like a major (predictable) part of the decision was the narrow definition of “threat to the security of Canada” as found in the CSIS act, and a requisite part of proclaiming a public order emergency. That will likely survive appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and eventually SCC if they agree to hear it.

Even if a more broad interpretation were allowed, somehow (Justice Rouleau allowed it, after all), the government's argument relied on economic harm at border crossing protests, which had all been dismantled by the provinces already, and unjustified concern over a "lone wolf" event without evidence of any clear threat (senior CSIS and RCMP analysts stated there was no credible threat of violence during the public order inquiry).

The invocation of the act was focused on the portion of downtown Ottawa around parliament, hardly an economic threat to the city (all major routes including the bridges into Gatineau were still open), let alone the country, and the freezing of bank accounts so that protestors could no longer purchase food and fuel. And if the hypothetical threat of lone actors is enough to call a national emergency, then perhaps we should not allow any large protests.

During the invocation of the Emergencies Act, on 17 Feb 2022, eco terrorists attacked a Coastal Gaslink pipeline site with axes, torches, and flares. They set equipment on fire with workers inside the cabs. It was several days before the federal government made any acknowledgement of the incident and it barely hit national news. Somehow purchasing fuel to run truck cabs parked on Wellington street was an existential threat to the nation and its economy but actual violent acts on national economic infrastructure weren't?

 

[QV]

I don't recall any person arguing the EA itself is unconstitutional. Just that it wasn't justified. Now recall the lead up to it... the claims by the PM and media of the rightwing whackos, misogynist racists funded by foreign players that were the core of the protest (Canada's Jan6th). The LPC and media played a narrative to the public to generate support for this gross overreach. The LPC were shocked at the widespread support this movement had in protesting the handling of the C19 pandemic and other Trudeau policies, and they had to do something about it fast. This was about beating down those who oppose Trudeau.

 

[Furniture]

This was about beating down those who oppose Trudeau.

Narrowly, yes. It was about beating down very specifically the people who were protesting in Ottawa. More broadly it was a chance for Trudeau the Lesser to show he was a "strong" leader just like his daddy.

 

[Lumber]

Just because we have incompetent governments at all levels though we chose a inappropriate sludge hammer to deal with a small nail that was sticking up. From Fords perspective he won as no one blames him for any of that despite his weaponized incompetence being why it was such a big issue in the first place.

See I think this is a false comparison.

Other than the freezing of bank accounts, what was done with the use of the EA was exactly what would/should have happened by the OPS/OPP. The EA severely more or less jsut as the vehicle that gave the feds the authority to order things to be done that should have already been ordered by someone else. Do you consider the act of physically removing the occupiers as a "sludge hammer", or is just because the feds were the ones who ordered it?

As for the freezing of bank accounts, I also don't consider that as a sledge hammer. It was temporary and short lived.

 

[QV]

As for the freezing of bank accounts, I also don't consider that as a sledge hammer. It was temporary and short lived.

It was overbroad, unjustified, and illegal. I don't want my government operating in that fashion, ever.

 

[YZT580]

See I think this is a false comparison.

Other than the freezing of bank accounts, what was done with the use of the EA was exactly what would/should have happened by the OPS/OPP. The EA severely more or less jsut as the vehicle that gave the feds the authority to order things to be done that should have already been ordered by someone else. Do you consider the act of physically removing the occupiers as a "sludge hammer", or is just because the feds were the ones who ordered it?

As for the freezing of bank accounts, I also don't consider that as a sledge hammer. It was temporary and short lived.

the duration of the actions should have no bearing on this case at all. It was up to the OPS to take action to control the protest with the emphasis on control. The demonstration didn't come as a surprise. Those trucks were on the road for a week before they arrived in OW. And the protest itself was totally legal. It would have taken very little planning to channel the vehicles into a designated parking area. The actions taken were designed to play to the press and to the left wing loonies that were pushing lockdowns and vaccines, saying thanks under their breathes that the trucks were still delivering their veggies from California whilst forcing them to carry a coke bottle to pee in. It is hard to say that the truckers were damaging our international relations when the same government allowed the indigenous folks to block rail lines for days on end a couple of years prior. Their accounts weren't frozen, in fact they weren't even forced to move their actions off of the track. IMHO any action that exceeds the situational necessity is a sledge hammer and is inappropriate.

 

[Remius]

The court said he was wrong on the EA and you want to argue about a nickname? Fine, you win. I won't call trudeau Skippy anymore.

I wasn’t arguing with you at all. When someone says skippy in the context of Canadian politics it’s assumed that it’s PP.

You explained that that is YOUR pet name for Trudeau. I actually left it as that as you explained your thought process. then max doubled down with an erroneous statement that is factually wrong. I responded to that.

Call him what you want. Don’t really care, but if we are going to have an honest discussion about a subject, definitions are key to making sure we’re understood no?

 

[lenaitch]

Ugh. God knows when I’m gonna have time to read all of this.

At first glance it looks like a major (predictable) part of the decision was the narrow definition of “threat to the security of Canada” as found in the CSIS act, and a requisite part of proclaiming a public order emergency. That will likely survive appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and eventually SCC if they agree to hear it.

Ha. The only reason I had the time is I woke up at 0530 and couldn't get back to sleep. I would imagine with a new bambino, sleep and spare time have become foreign concepts.

The one thing I find interesting in the ruling starts at [370] on P. 123 where he basically says his initial view was to agree with the government but changed his mind (and essentially congratulates a couple of the applicants for presenting a strong case). Usually, the Court tries to avoid hindsight, but no one is at jeopardy here and the case is more about policy, the legislative process and procedure so perhaps it was appropriate to take his approach.