I believe the National Post goes well beyond “editorial position”. They have veered perilously close to being anti-vax, anti-mask and favouring a month long blockade of our capital (while in the past calling for other protests to be dealt with severely and quickly). Rex Murphy all by himself is…well these days verging into conspiracy theories.
Their stance has become increasingly divorced from reality. It goes beyond politics.
Just my opinion of course. YMMV.
They did not take any of those positions, come on. Let’s at least criticize people for things they actually did. Try to consider the possibility you’re demonizing people who disagree with you, because you are.
Rex Murphy is an incoherent blowhard, but he has been for a very long time. I think he appeals to really old people.
That is quietly stated, or at least alluded to, in Volume I of the Commission’s report. Cite to Volume I of the Commission’s report:
Admittedly, there was not a lot that the federal government could do, short of cancelling the “vaccination required for cross-border truckers” demand that came down in December 2021, but the report also indicated, and reiterated a few times, that the United States had already demanded and put in place, vaccination for cross-border truckers, so Canada’s demand was basically moot. In other words, even if the Canadian government had acceded to the truckers’ demands and cancelled the vaccination mandate for cross-border truckers, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference–they would not have been able to get into the US in any event.
That aside, it was noteworthy that the report singled out Justin Trudeau’s remarks prior to the arrival of the truckers in Ottawa. It particularly zeroed in on his “unacceptable views” remarks. Here’s what he said, with surrounding commentary by the report’s author (at pages 172-173 of the report):
Emphasis added by me.
What struck me about Volume I was that it implied that no level of government, federal, provincial, and especially not the municipalities involved (Ottawa, Windsor, Emerson, Coutts, etc.) was victorious. Not Justin Trudeau’s federal Liberals, and not Doug Ford’s Ontario Conservatives. Indeed, in some cases, such as the example illustrated above, but not the only one, the report indicated that the federal Liberals and the Ontario Conservatives only inflamed the situation. Hardly a victory, for any party.
See, this is one of the things I missed when I was away from the SDMB - I don’t have anyone on my Facebook feed who would defend the National Post in a calm and rational fashion. But it’s important for me to hear from that point of view, even though I’ll likely disagree with it.
I do generally disagree with it. I think it important to consider all views though not to give them the same weight. At the end of the day no one came out of this looking good, or even prepared at a basic level.
Perhaps it speaks to my maturity that I often disagree with Murphy but quite often agree with Coyne. He summarized this decision very well, in my view.
I wonder about this slightly dissenting legal analysis. Coyne says the threshold is not no other law would suffice, but must be “effective” to do so. If it is true other legal alternatives exist but would not clearly be effective, than a lot of analyses gloss over this important distinction.
Edited Excerpt from first link (Coyne, 2 posts above):
To be sure, it is not sufficient that the government sincerely believes this (though it is necessary). It has to have reasonable grounds for this belief: defined by the courts as a “compelling and credible” factual basis. But to be “reasonable,” the government doesn’t have to be right. It just has to be reasonable: something a reasonable person might also believe, given the same information – that is, the information available at the time.
Well, now. Let’s go through the list of conditions. Was it reasonable for the government to believe the situation “seriously endangered the lives, health, or safety of Canadians”? The evidence is overwhelming: the intimidation, harassment and outright assault of bystanders in downtown Ottawa; the multiple open fires, close to propane tanks and diesel cans; the obstruction of critical services; the swarming of police officers attempting to enforce the law, and the resulting unwillingness of police to intervene further; the growing risk of violence, as the protest wore on, between protesters and counterprotesters; the even greater risk of violence if and when the police finally did step in.
There was also the economic impact of the mushrooming blockades at the borders. While the disruption of trade and economic activity, considerable as it was, might not constitute a threat to health or safety in itself, as the judge argued, the consequences of a “serious, sudden, prolonged, and deliberate disruption to economic security and the ability to earn a living” almost certainly would. Was that not precisely the argument of the protesters against vaccine mandates, lockdowns and other anti-COVID measures? And while [this or that blockade, such as at Windsor’s Ambassador Bridge might have been dismantled, there was every prospect of another blockade taking its place – not only at border crossings, but possibly extending to railways or ports – or of the same blockade resuming.
What about the “threat or use of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective”? Do the multiple explicit threats of violence directed at the Prime Minister, members of his cabinet, the mayor of Ottawa and other officials count? How about the large cache of weapons and ammunition discovered by RCMP officers at the blockade in Coutts, Alta in possession of known extremists, or the presence of similar “bad actors” at other sites? Or the increasingly apocalyptic rhetoric of the protesters and their supporters, including demands to seize power and threats to assassinate public-health officials?
This was, in short, no peaceful, lawful protest. It might have begun that way; most of the protesters and some of the organizers might have preferred it remain so. But it did not. After the first weekend, after the protesters were told to leave and did not, it began to spin out of control. As Justice Rouleau writes, the situation was increasingly “unsafe and chaotic…
Hello all. Its been a few years… I didnt quit I just got out of thr habit of checking the Dope, then well stuff happened, and I’m Im back.
I worked in a private very expensive lo g term care facility during the pandemic. Despite our facility getting off relatively lightly, something brokw inside me and I know I’m not the same. Yes I’ve got some support and counsellimg, doing much better now. I now work in the comminity and I love my job.
It’s nice to be back.
Welcome back, Mona_Lisa_Simpson! I’m sorry to hear you’ve had such a hard time. It’s good to hear from you!
Heading your way a week from today. Skiing the Cariboos and Northern Rockies with an outfit between Jasper and Prince George (by McBride). Good folks, clients and guides alike, and great food and ambiance. Guess I’ll mask in the airports. Last year we had to test every morning, but not this year (although I have friends getting their butts kicked by Covid as we speak). I love Bozeman, but MT politics (and the US in general) are the pits. Wish I could move north.
Gordon Pinsent has died at the age of 92. I remember him fondly from all those CBC shows in the 70s - “The Rowdyman”, “A Gift to Last”, and the list goes on…
He also narrated the awesome documentary “The Devil at Your Heels” about Canadian stuntman Ken Carter’s attempt to jump the St. Lawrence River.
Another strong effort from The Coyne.
In the news: Canadian government gives Volkswagen up to $13B in subsidies over ten years to build electric vehicle factory.
The jobs are needed and the competition was considerable. But that’s a lot of money.
“Nothing to see here. I asked the PM. He said no.”
I think the point being missed is that it would be difficult to hold a public enquiry given that most of the evidence is incredibly sensitive in terms of foreign intelligence gathering, and revealing it would compromise a lot of the sources that our spy agency uses.
But apparently this does not matter. What matters is that the politicians make political hay of this, and rile the gullible public up.
What matters is that we should vilify and shit on the former Governor General of Canada, who was appointed by a Conservative PM, and call him a Trudeau lover.
I think it’s important to know that Johnson recommended that the opposition party leaders be given top security clearance and given access to ALL of the information that he has seen. Poilievre has said “NO”. He does not want the information. He does not want to see the factual basis for Johnson’s report. He wants NONE OF THAT. He wants to continue to shit on Johnson’s reputation, and to continue to demand the impossible (release of all the information that our spy agency collects), because he wants to win the next election.
Yes, I have a hard time seeing David Johnson as ‘partisan’, after his having served as Governor General appointed by Stephen Harper. I’m not sure how this will play out among Conservative supporters, but for me, this is one more example of Mr. Poilièvre cashing in on anti-Trudeau sentiment.
I’ve seen similar reactions to the ruling that Alberta premier Danielle Smith contravened the Conflict of Interests Act, that the Ethics Commissioner was biased/partisan. I know the Ethics Commissioner personally, and she is as staunch an Conservative as they come.
To me, it all smacks of ‘I didn’t like the result of the game, therefore the referee must be biased’. Unless you can point to a specific action that was biased, I don’t buy it!
And as Pollievre doubles down on the bullshit:
In his report, Johnston noted that Poilievre declined to meet with him before his interim report, and said it’s understandable that he might not want to be subject to the “constraints” of Canada’s [security of information law.).
However, Johnston added, “this matter is too important for anyone aspiring to lead the country to intentionally maintain a veil of ignorance on these matters. While political parties may disagree about policy and priorities, they should do so from a common understanding of the true facts, not as speculated or hypothesized from media reports based on leaks of partial information.”
I think Johnston is a stand-up dude. I think the optics clearly make him a very marginal choice for this particular thing, for several reasons, despite his years of service. I doubt there is much, if any, fire behind the smoke, but certainly would have liked to see a different process, recognizing the potential sensitivity and inherent difficulties of the issue.