- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 940
Thanks.
But my point is not whether people don't like "the cut of his jib", it's the fact that he persists in breaking the law.
CDN/US Covid-related political discussion
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
But my point is not whether people don't like "the cut of his jib", it's the fact that he persists in breaking the law.
Excessive reluctance on the part of police leadership to arrest and charge instigators.
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
But, as a matter of public safety, political power can be removed and transferred to a deputy.
Randy may not have much political power, but the sad fact is some people seem to be inspired by him.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,938
- Points
- 1,160
He has been charged, once and finally, along with Maxime. Other services need to step up.
VIDEO: Heated moments between Peterborough Police Chief and Independent MPP Randy Hillier at anti-lockdown rally
Maxime Bernier, the leader of the federal People’s Party of Canada and Independent MPP Randy Hiller were both fined at rally
www.mykawartha.com
Likely they’ll push the issue til repetition necessitates a hold for court.
This should be a standardized approach across the province. You take the mic at a COVID rally, if you’re violating any of the restrictions, you get charged. Make it consistent. Will stupidity ensue? Yes. But it already is.
This should be a standardized approach across the province. You take the mic at a COVID rally, if you’re violating any of the restrictions, you get charged. Make it consistent. Will stupidity ensue? Yes. But it already is.
- Reaction score
- 3,420
- Points
- 1,160
If this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/elizabeth-may-court-kinder-morgan-protest-1.4681097 is ok, Randy Hillier can do what he wants. In fact, he'd probably welcome the charges, contest them in court and make the Crown go through providing all the evidence that it's actually dangerous to stand outside at a rally or why we've had our charter rights removed on a seemingly endless basis.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,571
- Points
- 1,260
I am not willing to forgo anything in our legislation, laws, charters or rights for this virus. That includes peoples right to expression and protest.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
Not helped when DOC publishes a notice about a Cell tower in your area and all the links in the notice are dead. Then when you finally track down who is responsible, they can't send you anything showing the antenna signal strength, side lobs or anything beyond the general arrangement drawing for the tower and the frequency. I know it's just laziness and incompetence, but it's certainly does not help calm anyone who is alarmed by what they read on the internet.Oh, for a second there I thought you were talking about Climate Change and 5G
...But it wasn’t ok. That’s why she was convicted and fined.
You’re off track if you think the government would need to prove all the science in the course of defending against a charge. It would be a pretty straightforward Charter application, where the government would advance a justification under S.1 per the framework in Oakes. At least one COVID case - Taylor v Newfoundland - has already upheld COVID restrictions against a Charter challenge.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
And that is precisely the point.
If one believes that a law or other impediment to Charter-protected rights and freedoms is unconstitutional, the only way to test that is to challenge it in court.
There are other similar challenges being made in other parts of the country as well.
It appears that the only people who are paying the fines for tickets are the ones who do not challenge them. Anybody who does challenge them sees them dropped. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one has gone to court. That indicates a lack of confidence on the government side, and a loss of the ability to force conformity to what are generally arbitrary - and frequently-changing or confusing - restrictions.
The "experts" continually flip-flop on the mask issue, for one. "Don't wear masks; they don't help/make things worse" - "Wear masks, they protect everyone" (even if they're home-made from T-shirt fabric and hair elastics) - "Masks do not protect the wearer, only others around them" - "Wear two masks, because 'it only makes sense' (Anthony Fauci, who offered no evidence to support his claim)... Meanwhile, "experts" continue to argue both sides, and research also supports both sides. Initially, masks made sense to me and I was one of very few wearing one when indoors in public in the relatively early stages last year, but I am no longer convinced that they have any real benefit.
If a government wants to restrict people's rights and freedoms - and often cause other forms of medical/mental/emotional/financial harm by doing so - it had better be able to justify its actions, legally and scientifically.
Gonna need a citation on that. I keep seeing it claimed, but nobody can substantiate it. I do happen to know that courts have been tremendously delayed and frequently closed as a result of COVID and still have many pre-COVID matters to handle. It’s highly likely that any COVID related tickets that are being contested have not had trials scheduled yet, or have seen them pushed back considerably. Even in criminal courts, the courts are granting 9 or 10 months of ‘COVID time’ on Jordan delay applications.
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 940
When was the last time an expert (and I don't mean a YouTube "doctor") said anything against the use of masks? I haven't seen a credible source say not to wear masks since fairly early last year.
As far as people thinking their rights are being taken away, go spend a year in China or Russia and see how you feel then.
These assclowns are just making things worse, IMO.
As far as people thinking their rights are being taken away, go spend a year in China or Russia and see how you feel then.
I suspect the courts might be busy with other things, like trials for murder, assault, DUI, etc. And of course, delays, as brihard stated.
These assclowns are just making things worse, IMO.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Taylor v Her Majesty the Queen: The Applicant’s had “Bigger Fish to Fry” - TheCourt.ca
In this case, the constitutionality of Newfoundland and Labrador's travel restriction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is challenged.
www.thecourt.ca
"Conclusion
"The trial court in Newfoundland and Labrador was of the opinion that a law such as s. 28(1)(h) is within the right of provinces to pass and though it may push up against deeply important mobility rights, the fleeting breach was not outweighed by the very concerning COVID-19 pandemic. This case has some interesting insights but is not determinant as to how future cases may be decided. Had Taylor been unable to enter the province entirely, the analysis may have come to different outcome. Moreover, with different facts, s. 7 may be engaged. That being said, the case does suggest that provincial authority and minimal impairment may be very relevant in cases of this nature going forward. If a litigant is unable to make it over these hurdles, their success in the case may be quite dim.
"The trial judge noted that the applicant had “bigger fish to fry” and it is true. Rather than challenge the decision of the CMOH vis-à-vis administrative law, Taylor wanted to end the travel restriction in its entirety through a constitutional challenge. The obvious reality that the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated is that not only are our rights not absolute, they are flexible and responsive to emergency situations. The extent of its flexibility remains to be seen. Be on the lookout for other cases that may try to test it in the near future."
This seems, to me, to be very narrow, and, as she was, ultimately able to enter, possibly partially denied because of that.
The notion that rights "are flexible" is chilling. If "flexible", they are not rights, and our Charter is meaningless.
The Charter has always been subject to the reasonable limitations clause, S. 1. It’s never been absolute. Emergency powers versus the Charter are a new and barely tested thing, but historically courts have had some deference to government Imm cases of major emergency.
DOJ’s ‘Charterpedia’ has a pretty solid primer that you may find interesting. Here’s their page on S. 1, including how this can be applied in cases.
www.justice.gc.ca
DOJ’s ‘Charterpedia’ has a pretty solid primer that you may find interesting. Here’s their page on S. 1, including how this can be applied in cases.
Charterpedia - Section 1 – Reasonable limits
Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
- Reaction score
- 3,420
- Points
- 1,160
2 different questions I guess. The Elizabeth May article was meant to demonstrate she wasn't removed from office for being convicted of a crime, so Randy Hillier should only have to face the electorate.
1. Biden administration set to relax outdoor mask guidance or social distancing inside is stupid: MIT researchers say time spent indoors increases risk of Covid at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies
2. So the new litmus test for how free we are, is to be marginally better than totalitarian societies and think that it's ok? What a ridiculous straw man argument.
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 940
Neither one of your sources say anything about masks not being useful in preventing spread. The second is also dependent on vaccination numbers.
Never said it was a litmus test for anything. These are temporary measures and people are being fucking selfish idiots.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,938
- Points
- 1,160
There is no power of arrest under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The best they could do is issue a summon instead of an offence notice with a set fine. There is a provision for a court to issue an order to restrain an individual but the Crown would have to apply and I'm not exactly sure it is applicable (didn't research).
All constitutional rights are subject to limitations. Even in the US, where they take the view that their rights emanated from a mountain top not man, are subject to limitations.
- Reaction score
- 3,420
- Points
- 1,160
There it is. I was waiting for someone to victim blame. You just illustrated the perfect example of why all these draconian measures are BS. They're predicated around the non-scientific assumption that everyone that gets COVID must have seen it coming, and must have done something to contract it. It's quite frankly disgusting that you, as a former medical professional can sit here and broad-brush everyone who gets COVID as people who are "selfishish idiots" for contracting an invisible, airborne disease that infects individuals as fast as a common cold.
If non-medical masks worked, we wouldn't have massive spread. If social distancing in buildings worked, office places wouldn't be seeing huge spikes in cases. The entire COVID plan in Canada (and in most places around the world) has been unscientific panic and fear mongering, even 18 months later when we have hard scientific data showing how COVID spreads and who's at risk. Even the initial Rnot values of 3 or 4 that were used to lock everyone down haven't come to fruition. Even with record setting weeks of cases in Ontario, it never went above 1.3. Non-medical masks came into use because they assumed COVID was spreading on surfaces and droplets. It's pretty damn clear now the virus molecule is so small that whatever old t-shirt you cut up to make a mask is insufficient, and only N95s or similarly SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED masks work for infection control.
If I used your logic, every single healthcare worker that contracted COVID while at work is a fucking moron for not properly wearing the PPE that they were issued. After all, if they just followed the rules they wouldn't have gotten sick. They probably even murdered people with their carelessness and should be charged.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
So restricting people's rights is not also "fucking selfish"?
Is this country "free", as is claimed, or not?
None of us advocating for the rights and freedoms that we thought that we had are seeking to impinge on the freedoms of others to wear one, two, or twenty masks, isolate at home, avoid work, or adopt any other measure that makes them feel better.
I tend not to hang around large crowds anyway, or spend one more minute shopping than absolutely necessary, and have no personal problem wearing masks in public if it makes others feel better so none of this has had much effect upon me, but more and more people are coming to see endlessly-repetitive, inconsistent, illogical lockdowns as harmful shams. Protests are growing in size, and Doug Ford was forced to back down from two of his recent edicts. Seeing police forces refuse to go along was particularly heartening. Ontario is, though, for some bizarre reason, the only province or state in North America to ban golf (unless that's been lifted now as well and I missed it). I think that it is a silly game, but believe that golfers should be able to enjoy their ball-whacking. It's outdoors, after all.
Now, about that mask-effectiveness thing: I've been saving articles and links that I feel relevant for sometime, and was pretty sure that I had saved a few that support that. One was a meta-analysis, which I cannot find. I'll keep looking for that one tonight.
In the meantime:
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery
The use of surgical facemasks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff. More recently, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Covid-19: Are cloth masks still effective? And other questions answered
In light of new, more transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, Elisabeth Mahase examines what kinds of mask the public should be wearing, and where they should be worn Early in the pandemic, major problems in the global supply of medical grade masks meant that the public was asked to avoid using...
Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol...
www.rcreader.com
I remain, as I said, no longer convinced that they have any real benefit. I still have nothing against wearing one.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Is destroying people's businesses a "reasonable limit"?
Is depriving people of critical non-CCP virus medical care a "reasonable limit"?
Is driving people to opiod dependency and/or suicide a "reasonable limit"?
Is forcing people to die alone a "reasonable limit"?
Are the advocates for those harms not "fucking selfish"?
My sister and I managed to get our mother out of hospital (in five times last year, once for a perforated ulcer that almost killed her, and a major reason why I was offline for so long) just a couple of days before Doug Ford's last lockdown. It was a huge undertaking. We had to rent a hospital bed and one of those crane thingies and buy a bunch of other stuff, and my sister did nothing but look after her around the clock until late February. It was worth it, because staying in through that would have killed her plus she received better care and was in her own home. I had it easy in comparison, but it is still a five-hour-plus drive either way. We considered the three of us fortunate, compared to many. We did not not have to endure the inhumane torment and anguish that those poor people did.
Similar threads
