I certainly did not suggest scam artists should get to keep anyone’s money.
But I’m still curious as to why the Emergencies Act needed to be invoked. There are already laws against fraud.
Yes, and as I’m sure you know, often financial cases move exceedingly slowly. And in the meantime, the money will be flowing to… God knows where. Western separatist political party? Swastika waving yahoos? Guys like the ones in Coutts AB who took an arsenal to a protest? More truckers who are going to block… something else next for shits and giggles?
No. The money flow stops. Now.
So what? Ooh, some yahoos with an offensive flag might get a couple of bucks!
Show me evidence this is the only remaining option to prevent something that is literally beyond the capability of a province to deal with, or which literally threatens the national security of the country, and cannot be dealt with by any other law. You can’t, because it’s not true. Similar and worse things have happened since the passage of the EA and all were dealt with.
If you standard for the Emergencies Act is “The money flow stops. Now.” to mid-level-at-most criminals, then logically it should always be in force.
And by the way, are we making Western separatism illegal now? I just want to check on that. I thought that was legal and covered by the Charter of Rights, but it was your first example of something that should be legally punished.
That is from three weeks ago. Perhaps you are unaware, but the protest is over. They broke it up BEFORE this week’s votes on the Emergencies Act.
So my question stands. What is the emergency?
As a response to my post #539 about the protestors’ interpretation of “liberty”, this is goalpost-shifting irrelevance.
The “truckers” and their adherents did not embark on their whole multi-week government-destabilization mission because they were PO’d about excessively harsh scrutiny of individual donations to activism movements. They were pitching a fit because their interpretation of “liberty” meant they didn’t think they should hafta do anything they didn’t wanna do in terms of complying with public health protocols in a global pandemic. Too bad, so sad.
As a separate critique of government overreach in cracking down on illegal anti-government activity, your complaint may have merit or it may not. As you later acknowledged in post #553, it’s not yet determined whether the person(s) penalized for their financial support of the “trucker” convoy were being penalized merely as individual donors to a cause whose illegal activities they weren’t even aware of.
If they were, that’s potentially cause for concern, but not automatically an instance of government jackbooted thuggery, depending on how nefarious the cause is. Try, for example, sending a monetary donation to an organization in the US flagged as supporting terrorism, even merely as an individual donor, and see what you get.
I don’t see the relevance. They had stupid beliefs, so? I’m talking about the appropriate role of government here in how it enforces the law. I wouldn’t care if the convoy was about vaccine mandates or whether ponies are pretty.
You don’t like them? Fine, neither do I. (Vaccine refusniks, not ponies.) Doesn’t matter. Whether it is appropriate to pass the Emergencies Act is true or false irrespective of the details of what the people causing the emergency believe. And the thing is, there is no emergency. This is a giant panic.
I agree, as I already said, that your reply to my previous post was not relevant to the point I was making in it.
You appear to have experienced a completely different past three weeks from me. Nice work diminishing what actually went on.
So again, with how time works; the border blockades are over, @Skywatcher. They were broken up without use of the Emergencies Act. The auto plants are open (and auto plants being closed are a national emergency?)
Can you please explain where the emergency is NOW that necessitated voting to extend the Emergencies Act? The blockade at the Windsor border crossing has been over for some time.
Can you explain, NOW, what the emergency is? Not two weeks ago, but now, that necessitates passage of the Emergency Act - specifically, something a province cannot handle, that cannot be handled with any existing law, and that threatens national security or could result in genuine disaster. As of today?
I mean, is everything a national emergency now? Am I diminishing what went on? Well, that depends. If your claim is that what went on was a threat to national security that could not possibly have been dealt with in any other way, yes. I say that’s false. And it’s definitely false now, because it’s not going on anymore.
Ask the workers who were getting a temporary layoff.
You seem to be conveniently ignoring the facts about how things actually work. The powers under the Emergencies Act went into effect as soon as the declaration was made. Parliamentary approval within (I believe) 7 days is required by law. In practical terms failure to secure such approval would have been regarded as a repudiation of the declaration. This would have been a genuinely big deal and some (by “some” I mean in particular the members of your favourite opposition party) would have tried to interpret it as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
As for whether the declaration was necessary, I would remind you that the City of Ottawa had already declared a state of emergency on Feb 6, and the Province of Ontario declared a state of emergency on Feb 11. So yes, both entities clearly believed that we were facing emergencies, including the Conservative government of Ontario. Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act three days later.
I can’t help but feel that your vehement and counterfactual opposition to invoking the Emergencies Act is based on nothing more than the fact that it was Trudeau who invoked it.
Any group that paralyses your capital, largest city and busiest trade route, occupies public spaces and refuses to leave is pretty close to bordering on terrorism.
Emergency act was totally appropriate. Which is why the preponderance of Canadians support the action. Such are the workings of democracies.
Having a big truck and being dissatisfied that your way isn’t the majority position doesn’t mean you can occupy public spaces and demand your way. And if you do so, you better be prepared to face the consequences.
There were nurses and doctors who lost jobs because they refused the vaccine. The truckers are free to not get the jab, they just want to be excused from the consequences.
I reckon they’ve earned this lesson in consequences.
If there’s anything I’ve learned about conservatives over the last some odd years, it’s that they want to be free from any consequences.
Really good Op-Ed on what “Freedom” means; By Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The short piece is worth reading in it’s entirety. I’ll just quote the ending:
Freedom is not absolute but subject to reasonable limits.
Freedom, misconstrued as license to do and say whatever one wants, is dangerous.
True freedom – freedom subject to reasonable limits that allow us to live together – is essential to a peaceful and prosperous future for us all. Let’s not allow the freedoms we cherish to become ugly freedoms.
Absolutely correct.
Bingo. You win today’s prize!
And, as I understand it (please someone correct me if I’m wrong), without the Emergencies Act, the out-of-city police forces would have had to have been sworn in (which would have taken some time) before they could assist. With the Act, they could be employed immediately, which was required.
No, temporary layoffs - which have ended, or are ending now - are not a national security emergency.
No I am not. I am referring to the votes taken this week. The blockades are over.
If it was a legal formality, why hasn’t it been lifted?
Yoiu know as well as I do that those things do not mean the same thing as invocation of the Emergencies Act. They are different things. Cities and provinces have invoked many states of emergency over the years. None resulted in the Emergencies Act being invoked. (ETA: In fact, Ontario invoked a state of emergency at the beginning of the pandemic.)
You are absolutely, one hundred percent wrong. My opposition to it is based on the fact that’s it’s reprehensible. I wouldn’t care who passed it, or against whom.
And still, no one has explained why it’s necessary.