4 ms·

> the power it hands to a few oligopolistic credit card processors And the government. In Canada the government suspended the constitution (because that's a th

> the power it hands to a few oligopolistic credit card processors And the government. In Canada the government suspended the constitution (because that's a thing over there?) because of some peaceful, free-speech protected, protests in the capital and started arbitrary freezing protester's bank accounts. Of course, without any due process (remember, constitutional rights were suspended!).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 3y ago
Yep, and hat tip to the government for a job well done. There's a right and a wrong way to protest, they were given time to choose to do it right. Now that the threat is over and dispersed they're welcome to come back and protest peacefully. For an end to the vaccine mandates, that ended already. Silly sausages. For reference, the Emergencies Act doesn't 'suspend the constitution' it suspends certain Charter rights for a period of time. [1] You may be thinking of the 'notwithstanding clause' but that's totally different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > the threat You can see here how wrong and violent these protests were. The bouncy castle and hot tub were a danger to society! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74pbbhCZng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74pbbhCZng [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzfwaSVIvoA https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzfwaSVIvoA
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Do you live in Canada, have family in Ottawa, or are you just consuming right-wing content in the US? They loaded up the capital area with 3,200L of fuel and started bringing in propane tanks. You think that wouldn't be considered a threat in front of the White House? Especially since the fortified compound around the White House is significantly further from the roadway than the comparatively unguarded Parliament is from Wellington St. With respect, I suggest you stick to commenting on the US, or at least things you have some specific knowledge of. Maybe read some contemporaneous news coverage. From Ottawa where it was happening. > Mayor Jim Watson declared a state of emergency Sunday after a dystopian weekend of carnival-like scenes, heightened lawlessness, growing tensions between protesters and residents, and relentless noise, diesel fumes and fireworks. The fact you think the situation was limited to 'bouncy castles and hot tubs' is pretty telling of how little you know about what you're discussing. You know the invocation of the Act was supported by multiple political parties at the Federal level and Provincial Premiers of all parties? [1] https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mayor-declares-emergency-after-weekend-of-chaos-police-begin-choking-off-fuel-supply-to-protesting-truckers https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mayor-declares-eme...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << For reference, the Emergencies Act doesn't 'suspend the constitution' it suspends certain Charter rights for a period of time. [1] Uhm, I dislike this weird defensiveness of newspeak. Does it suspend some rights available under normal circumstances? If yes, then it effectively suspends the constitution? Why does it feel like Simpsons nailed it so hard when Lisa proposed temporary refund adjustments and people cheered thrice out of sheer misunderstanding of the language used. And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    The Emergencies Act and how it's applied are governed by the Charter. It's a function of government as defined under the Charter. It's not a suspension thereof. It's moving into a different mode of operation, sure, but the it's still all a defined function of that system. As [1] states: > Any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In re: > And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act. Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions. In fact, once the emergency is over they're required by law to hold an inquiry on whether the action was justified in the first place. Further, the invocation can be rolled back by the House of Commons, the Senate or the Governor General - or honestly probably the King (albeit risking a constitutional crisis) - at any time, and all the temporary laws expire. This particular invocation was carried out under minority government meaning the invocation had to have the support of multiple political parties too, and risked calling an election. It also had the support of the Provincial Premiers of all political stripes. It's nothing like the Patriot Act.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      << The Emergencies Act and how it's applied are governed by the Charter. What you conveniently leave out is that government in its infinite wisdom can simply decide it does not apply under exceptions[1] in section 1 of the charter. Shocking. Government left itself an out. What is more annoying that people defend it as it is not what it actually is. Now compare it to what the act was intended for ( some sort of senior politician kidnapping ) and what it was used for in peace time ( forcibly dismantling a protest ). I guess what I am saying is that it can be governed by Charter all it wants, but at the end of the day it is, apparently, governed by what ruling party considers a crisis. << Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions. How it is written can be open to interpretation and it functions the way politics does ( expediency of the moment squared ). I am not really writing anything groundbreaking here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > There's a right and a wrong way to protest Looks more like there’s a right and a wrong _cause_ to protest.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Not at all, there have been numerous peaceful protests from these silly sausages since. They still meet up, protesting things that no longer exist, from time to time. You can find occasional news coverage of it. It really was the how. No need to make things up. There's plenty of real things to be upset about.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 3y ago

Yep, and hat tip to the government for a job well done. There's a right and a wrong way to protest, they were given time to choose to do it right. Now that the threat is over and dispersed they're welcome to come back and protest peacefully. For an end to the vaccine mandates, that ended already. Silly sausages. For reference, the Emergencies Act doesn't 'suspend the constitution' it suspends certain Charter rights for a period of time. [1] You may be thinking of the 'notwithstanding clause' but that's totally different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act

908B64B197 3y ago
> the threat You can see here how wrong and violent these protests were. The bouncy castle and hot tub were a danger to society! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74pbbhCZng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74pbbhCZng [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzfwaSVIvoA https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzfwaSVIvoA
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Do you live in Canada, have family in Ottawa, or are you just consuming right-wing content in the US? They loaded up the capital area with 3,200L of fuel and started bringing in propane tanks. You think that wouldn't be considered a threat in front of the White House? Especially since the fortified compound around the White House is significantly further from the roadway than the comparatively unguarded Parliament is from Wellington St. With respect, I suggest you stick to commenting on the US, or at least things you have some specific knowledge of. Maybe read some contemporaneous news coverage. From Ottawa where it was happening. > Mayor Jim Watson declared a state of emergency Sunday after a dystopian weekend of carnival-like scenes, heightened lawlessness, growing tensions between protesters and residents, and relentless noise, diesel fumes and fireworks. The fact you think the situation was limited to 'bouncy castles and hot tubs' is pretty telling of how little you know about what you're discussing. You know the invocation of the Act was supported by multiple political parties at the Federal level and Provincial Premiers of all parties? [1] https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mayor-declares-emergency-after-weekend-of-chaos-police-begin-choking-off-fuel-supply-to-protesting-truckers https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mayor-declares-eme...
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
<< For reference, the Emergencies Act doesn't 'suspend the constitution' it suspends certain Charter rights for a period of time. [1] Uhm, I dislike this weird defensiveness of newspeak. Does it suspend some rights available under normal circumstances? If yes, then it effectively suspends the constitution? Why does it feel like Simpsons nailed it so hard when Lisa proposed temporary refund adjustments and people cheered thrice out of sheer misunderstanding of the language used. And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  The Emergencies Act and how it's applied are governed by the Charter. It's a function of government as defined under the Charter. It's not a suspension thereof. It's moving into a different mode of operation, sure, but the it's still all a defined function of that system. As [1] states: > Any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In re: > And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act. Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions. In fact, once the emergency is over they're required by law to hold an inquiry on whether the action was justified in the first place. Further, the invocation can be rolled back by the House of Commons, the Senate or the Governor General - or honestly probably the King (albeit risking a constitutional crisis) - at any time, and all the temporary laws expire. This particular invocation was carried out under minority government meaning the invocation had to have the support of multiple political parties too, and risked calling an election. It also had the support of the Provincial Premiers of all political stripes. It's nothing like the Patriot Act.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    << The Emergencies Act and how it's applied are governed by the Charter. What you conveniently leave out is that government in its infinite wisdom can simply decide it does not apply under exceptions[1] in section 1 of the charter. Shocking. Government left itself an out. What is more annoying that people defend it as it is not what it actually is. Now compare it to what the act was intended for ( some sort of senior politician kidnapping ) and what it was used for in peace time ( forcibly dismantling a protest ). I guess what I am saying is that it can be governed by Charter all it wants, but at the end of the day it is, apparently, governed by what ruling party considers a crisis. << Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions. How it is written can be open to interpretation and it functions the way politics does ( expediency of the moment squared ). I am not really writing anything groundbreaking here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...
commandlinefan 3y ago
> There's a right and a wrong way to protest Looks more like there’s a right and a wrong _cause_ to protest.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Not at all, there have been numerous peaceful protests from these silly sausages since. They still meet up, protesting things that no longer exist, from time to time. You can find occasional news coverage of it. It really was the how. No need to make things up. There's plenty of real things to be upset about.