Consider it an observation only, but I think OPS dropped the ball by allowing that one to run concurrently and so close to CPPOM. Later in the day, no problem.
But what were they doing that so offends the law that they should not “be allowed” to hold that demonstration at that time and place? We don’t get to shut down a protests just because our feelings are hurt. And, bluntly, after how miserably OPS failed in February, the optics of that would be terrible in just about every way you could imagine. While I agree that someone could have alerted them in advance, it may well be that it simply wasn't noticed by anyone until too late. In any case, trying to shut that demo down because it was near to a law enforcement memorial would have one poorly. Good way to drive a further wedge between the police/law enforcement and a population that has had little reason to hold us in high esteem this past year…
I never inferred the Iranian protest should've been shut down, just moved to the right by an hour or so, or routed away from CPPOM.
Yeah, perhaps. Though I don’t believe it’s OPS that does permitting, rather the city.
And good luck passing a motion to invoke a section of a provincial statute that isn't even in force yet. They'd be better off jumping on whatever lawsuit is floating around.That's good. Hopefully, they won't the bill.
Egan: Dear truckers, hope you enjoyed your stay — here's the police bill
In a six-hour meeting of Ottawa city council Monday, there was one potentially explosive motion that didn't get a great deal of attention.ottawacitizen.com
True, but no doubt a copy is passed to OPS for input. I would imagine there is a full-time position within the Service just for this purpose.
Realistically, a municipal bylaw permit isn’t a particularly enforceable mechanism in the case of a lawful and peaceful demonstration. A city permit will never be the difference between police disallowing a protest or not. Lawful free expression is critical. Municipal special events permits are a convenience for the city more than anything. They serve more to help regulate and plan for special events like entertainment and cultural events more than anything.
I almost forgot about these clowns
300 Coventry Road. Objectively, there was a lot of potential danger there based on some of the individuals who were hanging out, and things they had said. It was bypassed and picqueted on the Friday and Saturday; hard cordons prevented anyone at Coventry from bringing vehicles in to reinforce the downtown protest. Saturday’s clearing of downtown broke the protest’s back and resolve, and a lot of people at Coventry departed when they saw vehicles being seized downtown. When police did go in they went in with a pretty heavy posture to deter bullshit, and it worked. It pretty much melted away. I believe that had the Coventry Road site been moved on before the main protest site, while they were still all fired up, it could have been quite different. Also possible that a few people simply would have been all talk regardless of the circumstances.
Troubling.
How so? It's not related to linguistic or aboriginal rights so Quebec wouldn't shy away from invoking either article 1 or 33 of the Charter if it found it politically necessary.
A province doesn’t ‘invoke’ S.1 of the Charter. S.1 is simply a thing that they know is there, and which they can hope will allow a law to be upheld. S.1 isn’t a trump card the way S.33 is.
That's pedantic. S1 is what the government would use to justify infringement of rights if it need not or could not use S33. Both are used for the same effect (getting around Charter rights), just with different rules.
The EA itself is legally meaningful. Public support (alternatively, absence of political consequences) for EAs makes them more likely. Ergo, public support for EAs is consequential with regards to our rights and freedoms, as it pushes us down a slippery slope.
Yes, I'm familiar with all that, but I remain unconvinced that this goes beyond semantics. The politicians, in the process of creation of law, will ponder how the courts will react, and when their law is judicially reviewed, will bring forth arguments that aim to satisfy the requirements of S1.
Ok, let me frame this in a different way then: S.1 helps the courts sharpen the blurry edges of Charter rights, a little bit at a time, when they have to decide how they apply in real settings. S.33 lets legislatures acknowledge and blow right through the boundaries that certain Charter rights would normally put up, when those legislatures pass a new law.
... here's the latest .....(...)
Soldier James Topp donned uniform while criticizing vaccine mandates to make his point
Warrant Officer James Topp says he does not believe people would have paid attention if he had not donned his uniform to publicly oppose the Canadian military’s vaccine requirements.www.nationalobserver.com
(...)
If link doesn't work, text also attached for purposes of research, private study or education under the Fair Dealing provisions of Canada's Copyright Act.
I wasn't viewing Ottawa council's attempt to invoke undeclared legislation as an effort to limit or prevent demonstrations; but a rather amateurish attempt to get someone to pay for them. Agree that 'parade permits' et al are primarily a planning and coordination tool. Whether a parade, demonstration, etc. is 'sanctioned' or 'unsanctioned' is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
www.thestar.com
