3 ms·

> Not really, unless you're the sort of person who believes that, say, the FBI's fake terror plots in the wake of 9/11 are proof that Bush did 9/11 But in this

> Not really, unless you're the sort of person who believes that, say, the FBI's fake terror plots in the wake of 9/11 are proof that Bush did 9/11 But in this case we do have hard evidence the feds did plant bombs and tried to blame it on the FLQ. > but there's ultimately no question that known Québécois separatist terrorists were responsible for the kidnapping and death Typically for murder you want to rule out accidental death and have a murdered. At least, in a real court with due process. I don’t know how much of that they were given considering the people were living under martial law at the time. > Quebec hasn't endorsed the Canada Act, but that very well may have nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that's a part of it Isn't the point of a constitution to have everyone endorse it and sign it? That's how it was done in America.

wk_end 5y ago
> But in this case we do have hard evidence the feds did plant bombs and tried to blame it on the FLQ. We likewise have evidence that the FBI created fake terror plots. You also ignored or failed to connect the dots to the rest of my post - the parts where I mentioned that the FLQ and FLQ terrorists publicly took responsibility for the kidnapping and death. > Typically for murder you want to rule out accidental death and have a murdered. At least, in a real court with due process. I don’t know how much of that they were given considering the people were living under martial law at the time. No, they were not living under martial law at the time - the relevant trials (and even arrests) were conducted after the War Measures Act was no longer in force. The fact that some people have disputed the findings of the court, years later, means little - especially in a situation as politically fraught as this, it's almost to be expected. It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying. > Isn't the point of a constitution to have everyone endorse it and sign it? That's how it was done in America. Again, "how it was done in America" isn't relevant at all, because Canada is not America, and the legal relationship that the provinces have with the federal government in Canada is not the same legal relationship that the states have with the American federal government. Indeed, Canadian Confederation happened directly in the wake of the American Civil War, and many of the choices the architects of it made were deliberately different than the choices the American Founding Fathers made so as to prevent something similar from occurring here. Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court), Quebec's refusal to endorse the Canada Act was and for many years (maybe still) remained a point of contention. If you're interested, you're free to read on Wikipedia and elsewhere all about the history of Confederation, the British North America act, the Canada Act, the Constitution Act, the Patriation Reference, the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and so on.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > We likewise have evidence that the FBI created fake terror plots. Such as? > It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying. Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened? > Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court) The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers. Why not simply get all Provinces consent? That sounds better than convoluted legal gymnastics if you ask me.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    Information about some of the fake terror plots concocted after 9/11 can be found simply by Googling "FBI fake terror plots". Try it! There's an article from The Guardian up near the top for me. > Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened? ...such as? I'm not aware of any, Google hasn't revealed anything, and there were indeed inquiries afterwards, so I suspect you're misinformed. > The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers. I'm surprised by this comment, because by analogy with the US - which you seem fond of - the Supreme Court in the US of course does this all the time. Even before 1982, the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in Canada were formally agreed upon and legally defined; when disagreements about the interpretation of those laws arose some body needs to arbitrate. In Canada - as in the US! - that falls to the courts. The federal government tried to get endorsement from all of the provinces - this lead to many changes to the bill as it was being drafted. Ultimately negotiations with Quebec failed (and have continued to fail when it was attempted again, twice, later on). At the time they felt that, given that it was legally viable, it was worth it to proceed without Quebec's support. Again, I implore you to actually look this stuff up yourself if you're genuinely interested - I'm not an expert on Canadian history, but plenty of people who are have written plenty about this.

wk_end 5y ago

> But in this case we do have hard evidence the feds did plant bombs and tried to blame it on the FLQ. We likewise have evidence that the FBI created fake terror plots. You also ignored or failed to connect the dots to the rest of my post - the parts where I mentioned that the FLQ and FLQ terrorists publicly took responsibility for the kidnapping and death. > Typically for murder you want to rule out accidental death and have a murdered. At least, in a real court with due process. I don’t know how much of that they were given considering the people were living under martial law at the time. No, they were not living under martial law at the time - the relevant trials (and even arrests) were conducted after the War Measures Act was no longer in force. The fact that some people have disputed the findings of the court, years later, means little - especially in a situation as politically fraught as this, it's almost to be expected. It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying. > Isn't the point of a constitution to have everyone endorse it and sign it? That's how it was done in America. Again, "how it was done in America" isn't relevant at all, because Canada is not America, and the legal relationship that the provinces have with the federal government in Canada is not the same legal relationship that the states have with the American federal government. Indeed, Canadian Confederation happened directly in the wake of the American Civil War, and many of the choices the architects of it made were deliberately different than the choices the American Founding Fathers made so as to prevent something similar from occurring here. Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court), Quebec's refusal to endorse the Canada Act was and for many years (maybe still) remained a point of contention. If you're interested, you're free to read on Wikipedia and elsewhere all about the history of Confederation, the British North America act, the Canada Act, the Constitution Act, the Patriation Reference, the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and so on.

908B64B197 5y ago
> We likewise have evidence that the FBI created fake terror plots. Such as? > It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying. Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened? > Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court) The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers. Why not simply get all Provinces consent? That sounds better than convoluted legal gymnastics if you ask me.
- wk_end 5y ago
  Information about some of the fake terror plots concocted after 9/11 can be found simply by Googling "FBI fake terror plots". Try it! There's an article from The Guardian up near the top for me. > Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened? ...such as? I'm not aware of any, Google hasn't revealed anything, and there were indeed inquiries afterwards, so I suspect you're misinformed. > The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers. I'm surprised by this comment, because by analogy with the US - which you seem fond of - the Supreme Court in the US of course does this all the time. Even before 1982, the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in Canada were formally agreed upon and legally defined; when disagreements about the interpretation of those laws arose some body needs to arbitrate. In Canada - as in the US! - that falls to the courts. The federal government tried to get endorsement from all of the provinces - this lead to many changes to the bill as it was being drafted. Ultimately negotiations with Quebec failed (and have continued to fail when it was attempted again, twice, later on). At the time they felt that, given that it was legally viable, it was worth it to proceed without Quebec's support. Again, I implore you to actually look this stuff up yourself if you're genuinely interested - I'm not an expert on Canadian history, but plenty of people who are have written plenty about this.