I don’t know why I didn’t see this a lot sooner, as it’s the kind of thing that’s right up my alley. Anyway, here’s Cliff Cardinal explaining the Land Back movement, from June 21, 2023 - https://youtu.be/TYiDHJ1U8LI?si=bf3YkS66XFUIVMtM
I remember reading an article about the Land Back idea. I think the message was that donating land to a First Nation is not simple (along the lines of the linked article below).
Yeah, unfortunately, the system is completely fucked. I notice that the CBC article you cite doesn’t mention a thing about lands that have never been treatied, ceded, or surrendered - as far as I’m concerned, that’s not Canada. However, ‘Canada’ has a long tradition of imposing their laws on Indigenous peoples and claiming/controlling lands that are not under ‘Canadian’ jurisdiction.
It’s quite embarrassing that among those unceded, unsurrendered, and untreatied territories are the lands that are now called Halifax and Ottawa.
Oh, my, this is going to be interesting! A federal judge has ruled that the use of the Emergencies Act against the Trucker Convoy was unreasonable. The government has said they intend to appeal, in part because the Rouleau commission came to the opposite conclusion.
And this is one of those moments when I’m very happy I’m not involved with the law, because I’m not impartial enough - nothing would please me more than to see all of the Freedom Convoy participants sued and in jail!
Let’s see what the Supreme Court has to say.
CBC article here - Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules | CBC News
I’m not surprised. The law as written has significant barriers, and I can see some reasonably saying those conditions were not met. No one would have been that upset had the convoy expressed strictly health concerns over one weekend. But eventually someone needed to do something.
Not sure this even matters much. The law needs revision to reflect a more pragmatic and modern understanding - keeping barriers on use high, but allowing reasonable action against those on any side causing widespread economic disruption for unreasonable periods of time, such as blocking bridges, railways or public thoroughfares. You should be able to make your point and protest, but not in any place at all, nor in any manner egregiously violating statute, and like all things constitutionally considered it must be reasonable (including any government or other response).
Particularly more nuanced definitions of “national economic security”…
In other news, not every cup is a Stanley.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/business/stanley-cups-arrest/index.html
I don’t know if you heard, but the Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment group just bought a few hundred of these cups for the team.
It’s the closest the Leafs are going to get to a Stanley Cup in our lifetimes… 
In a world where the Detroit Lions win two playoff games for the first time in 60 years, and are one game away from the Super Bowl, there’s hope for the Maple Leafs!
Do any of our law talking guys think this will stand?
As they say in “Ted Lasso” - “It’s the hope that kills you!”…
It is my understanding the judge rules SOME actions were unconstitutional. It was a sober, nuanced ruling from what I can tell, and hard to argue with, given that a plain text reading of the EA’s stated justifications right there in the statute would suggest it was not a situation that merited the EA’s use.
The bigger questions are:
-
Are Canadians upset that Trudeau took this action? (Not really.)
-
Will this be another millstone used against an unpopular Trudeau? (Probably.)
-
Does the law need revision? (I think so.)
It’s up to a higher court, possibly the Supreme Court, to decide whether the appeal has merit, and then to decide on the case itself.
And as I said upthread, I freely admit that I am not at all impartial in this case - I disagreed vehemently with these people when they were the Yellow Vests, when they were the Freedom Convoy, and I’ve counter-protested against them (and will continue to do so) now that they’ve morphed into the Million March for Children.
I fervently hope that they end up being treated in the same way that the Wetsuweten Land Protectors and the protesters at the 2010 G20 summit have been treated.
And the morons are back on the move:
Well, that’s going to be interesting! I have very little faith in the police in protests and counter-protests, but I also can’t see them putting up with being blockaded in. God knows, here in Toronto, they have no qualms about taking down homeless encampments with ruthless efficiency (and God only knows what they’d do if there weren’t homeless advocates filming their every move!), so maybe I will live to see some of them kettled and carried off.
I think there were likely many convoy participants that abided by the law, going home when asked. The Canadian government asking the American government to help them move tow trucks might have been a worse decision than the Big Dig.
The only sympathy I have with the initial health position, before the convoy morphed into contrarianism, is that since cross border truckers had up to that point been given leniency with regard to vaccinations (which I deem helpful and important) and the timing was bad by making noise about it after things had started to much improve. Why then?
Canada is largely a nation of immigrants who naturally have diverse positions on many complex issues. Not all of them are worthy of government taking a position. Groups blocked infrastructure because it garnered attention, but is this the precedent one wishes to set? I don’t mind people making their case. They do not always have a general right to violate the law (which was formulated to allow and be sympathetic towards legitimate strikes and protests, and define reasonable actions) for extended periods of time inconveniencing thousands of other people, no matter which group is involved, once they have made their point.
I don’t see how the first two questions have any bearing at all on the decision or the law, but, then, I am not a populist.
You’re right, those first two questions shouldn’t have any effect on the outcome of the case. However, those two questions accurately sum up one of my biggest concerns - does this ruling increase the chances that Pierre Poilièvre and the Conservative party may form the government after the next election? And I’m very much afraid the answer is ‘Yes, very likely.’.
While I realize this is not everyone’s opinion, in my opinion, a Poilièvre Conservative government would be a disaster. I’m not even sure anymore that the Liberals could win if M. Trudeau steps aside and another leader is chosen.
All Pierre Poilièvre has to do to win a majority in the next election is to NOT act like an American right-wing politician. Canadians don’t like that.
Trudeau stepping aside, and say, Freeland running, will be a disaster of Kim Campbell proportions.