4 ms·

<< 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

<< 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...
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > 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. Minority government, meaning multiple federal parties, in addition to all the provincial premiers. So basically, every elected official - plus the unelected official, the Governor General. It's why we elect them - and have them, respectively. Literally everyone had to sign off on this. If you think they're malicious then we have much bigger problems because frankly, they could find much easier ways to harm you than this. And again, it can be ended by basically anyone and immediately rolled back. I'm not yet convinced. But we can agree to disagree.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      I disagree overall, but I appreciate your replies. I agree that I could have made my point better.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        Nah you're good, I like talking to people I disagree with. I like it when folks change my mind. And for what it's worth, your argument was compelling. Sorry if I came across prickly, lol, I was typing faster than thinking.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > ( some sort of senior politician kidnapping ) and what it was used for in peace time ( forcibly dismantling a protest ). The state media and government tried to pin mailbox bombings and an instance of kidnapping to this group called the FLQ until an RCMP agent was caught literally red-handed (with severe burns and a torn off finger) planting bombs in a mailbox to pin it on the "FLQ"! [0] The feds then confessed to more than 400 illegal search and seizures, criminal trespass, breaking and entering and arson incidents and the bomb planter admitted he “had done much worse for the feds” (all of these incidents that were used to invoke the constitution's suspension!). Who was prime minister during that time? You guessed it, Justin Trudeau’s father. What a coincidence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Break-ins_and_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
- momirlan 3y ago
  said Charter which is worth zero, when any judge or politician can override it.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    I have news for you: if your leadership doesn't care about the process they can do literally whatever they want. What's written down is just words on a page. The whole thing is a construct, including the US constitution. The only real defense anyone has is checks, balances, various kinds of oversight and electing good people who care about doing the right thing. Canada has all of the above, generally speaking.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > 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. So the government will investigate... the government. Do they at least wait for an administration change? Worked out beautifully for police departments... > 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. Are any of those actually elected or are these just positions nominated by ... the same government who declared the suspension of rights?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > So the government will investigate... the government. Do they at least wait for an administration change? Worked out beautifully for police departments... You know the government is currently a minority government, meaning that they require the support of at least one other party to remain in power and an election can be called at any time. Canada's has elections every like 18 months on average under minority government. Any impropriety in the process would have almost certainly toppled the government and led to an immediate election. The person who found the government was justified in its use of the Emergencies Act [1] was Paul Rouleau [2] a justice of the Court of Appeals of Ontario. The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments. The House of Commons is elected and comprised of various parties. The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England, not beholden to any one person in Canada really, but instead to all Canadians. Obviously the King is neither nominated nor elected. And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned as the King's representative to Canada. So no, you're wrong, oversight comes from all over the political spectrum and all kinds of affiliations. Are you applying an American lens? The political system in Canada is quite different, and this is starting to feel like a high school Canadian civics class. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/four-highlights-emergencies-act-1.6752653 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/four-highlights-emergencies... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rouleau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rouleau
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      > Any impropriety in the process would have almost certainly toppled the government and led to an immediate election. Didn't they just have an election that resulted in the minority government? Meaning all parties knew their chances of overthrowing the current admin were slim. > Paul Rouleau Weird. He was nominated by a Liberal administration and found no wrongdoings in the actions of... a Liberal administration! > The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments. By who? Who nominates those people? > And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned. And nominated by? > The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England So weird to read that a foreign, non-elected person can have such a big impact. Feels completely alien.

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...
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > 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. Minority government, meaning multiple federal parties, in addition to all the provincial premiers. So basically, every elected official - plus the unelected official, the Governor General. It's why we elect them - and have them, respectively. Literally everyone had to sign off on this. If you think they're malicious then we have much bigger problems because frankly, they could find much easier ways to harm you than this. And again, it can be ended by basically anyone and immediately rolled back. I'm not yet convinced. But we can agree to disagree.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    I disagree overall, but I appreciate your replies. I agree that I could have made my point better.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Nah you're good, I like talking to people I disagree with. I like it when folks change my mind. And for what it's worth, your argument was compelling. Sorry if I came across prickly, lol, I was typing faster than thinking.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > ( some sort of senior politician kidnapping ) and what it was used for in peace time ( forcibly dismantling a protest ). The state media and government tried to pin mailbox bombings and an instance of kidnapping to this group called the FLQ until an RCMP agent was caught literally red-handed (with severe burns and a torn off finger) planting bombs in a mailbox to pin it on the "FLQ"! [0] The feds then confessed to more than 400 illegal search and seizures, criminal trespass, breaking and entering and arson incidents and the bomb planter admitted he “had done much worse for the feds” (all of these incidents that were used to invoke the constitution's suspension!). Who was prime minister during that time? You guessed it, Justin Trudeau’s father. What a coincidence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Break-ins_and_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
momirlan 3y ago
said Charter which is worth zero, when any judge or politician can override it.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  I have news for you: if your leadership doesn't care about the process they can do literally whatever they want. What's written down is just words on a page. The whole thing is a construct, including the US constitution. The only real defense anyone has is checks, balances, various kinds of oversight and electing good people who care about doing the right thing. Canada has all of the above, generally speaking.
908B64B197 3y ago
> 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. So the government will investigate... the government. Do they at least wait for an administration change? Worked out beautifully for police departments... > 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. Are any of those actually elected or are these just positions nominated by ... the same government who declared the suspension of rights?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > So the government will investigate... the government. Do they at least wait for an administration change? Worked out beautifully for police departments... You know the government is currently a minority government, meaning that they require the support of at least one other party to remain in power and an election can be called at any time. Canada's has elections every like 18 months on average under minority government. Any impropriety in the process would have almost certainly toppled the government and led to an immediate election. The person who found the government was justified in its use of the Emergencies Act [1] was Paul Rouleau [2] a justice of the Court of Appeals of Ontario. The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments. The House of Commons is elected and comprised of various parties. The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England, not beholden to any one person in Canada really, but instead to all Canadians. Obviously the King is neither nominated nor elected. And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned as the King's representative to Canada. So no, you're wrong, oversight comes from all over the political spectrum and all kinds of affiliations. Are you applying an American lens? The political system in Canada is quite different, and this is starting to feel like a high school Canadian civics class. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/four-highlights-emergencies-act-1.6752653 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/four-highlights-emergencies... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rouleau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rouleau
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > Any impropriety in the process would have almost certainly toppled the government and led to an immediate election. Didn't they just have an election that resulted in the minority government? Meaning all parties knew their chances of overthrowing the current admin were slim. > Paul Rouleau Weird. He was nominated by a Liberal administration and found no wrongdoings in the actions of... a Liberal administration! > The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments. By who? Who nominates those people? > And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned. And nominated by? > The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England So weird to read that a foreign, non-elected person can have such a big impact. Feels completely alien.