3 ms·

> 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, a

> 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

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.