• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

It’s not a weekend in Ottawa without a protest. I’m inclined to think that was coincidental; the Iranian community was reacting in real time to events on the ground in Iran. They’ve had other protests here since and, to the best of my knowledge, have consistently been respectful and law abiding. I’m not aware of any particular or intentional disrespect shown to police or law enforcement in the course of this series of Iranian protests.
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.

Concordantly, it would've been nice if someone from OPS had informed rhe CPPOM organizers so a "heads up" could've been passed to the participants. I was in the ranks behind the OPP. There were a lot of nervous LEOs on the Hill.
 
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.

Concordantly, it would've been nice if someone from OPS had informed rhe CPPOM organizers so a "heads up" could've been passed to the participants. I was in the ranks behind the OPP. There were a lot of nervous LEOs on the Hill.
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…
 
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.

OPS knew the date, time and place of CPPOM months ago. Comparing that to the permit request for the Iranian protest and saying "we'll issue you a permit for noon, but not 10:00 AM", wouldn't have offended anyone.
 
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.

OPS knew the date, time and place of CPPOM months ago. Comparing that to the permit request for the Iranian protest and saying "we'll issue you a permit for noon, but not 10:00 AM", wouldn't have offended anyone.
Yeah, perhaps. Though I don’t believe it’s OPS that does permitting, rather the city.
 
That's good. Hopefully, they won't the bill.

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.

I agree that this would be a slippery slope, particularly for cities like Ottawa and Toronto. If they pick and choose they are leaving themselves wide open for criticism. Besides, in many cases, who do you invoice?

Yeah, perhaps. Though I don’t believe it’s OPS that does permitting, rather the city.
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.
 
I've never been to a political protest. If I have a concern I can call, write or visit my councillor, MPP or MP here in the ward. They were elected to represent me at City Hall, Queen's Park or Ottawa.

I know. That's probably un- something or other. :)
 
You would surmise it was successful ?


If you're looking at it through the lens of the handful of people stupidly talking about arresting the government or whatever then no they didn't arrest Trudeau and force a regime change. Big fail.

So what did they do?

-Shut down the capital's downtown. For good or for ill they taught the police, military, and other organizations some hard lessons. Lucky for Ottawa the protestors were non-violent (contrary to the best narrative attempts).
-Put on display the governments lame attempt to scare the public with "Nazis! In Canada!". No real surprise here, standard Liberal SOP.
-Put massive police ineptitude on display. Police grunts with out to lunch bosses are probably appreciating their high paid dumb-ass bosses getting called out.
-Reminded police (and others) to watch what they say over social media and in "private" chat rooms. Called out the Musical Horsey dummies.
-Put Ottawa politician/city council ineptitude on display, arguably brought about change?
-Highlighted a lot of anti-Trudeau and anti-Liberal sentiment across Canada contrary to narrative that it's just a few disenfranchised people. No big impact here. People have PTSD from flags now?
-Reminded us about shadow OICs.
-Shows Canadians how quickly they'll become terrorists for wrong-speak and wrong-action, like donating $50 gas money to protestors. Remember those stories how most of the funding came from the US and overseas?
-Another display of the governments scare tactics to justify arguably heavy handed actions because it's shadowy "for national security". I guess those super serious threats just disappeared. Speaking of which whatever happened to that all-around-defense HQ site of scary looking men in a parking lot a few KMs away from down town?
-Showed us how the Emergencies Act was super duper important and there was no end in the forseeable future, until the LBC got wind the Senate wasn't going to support, then all of a sudden the EA wasn't required anymore. Had the LPC believed the senate would have supported it the EA might still be in effect now.
 
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.

I agree that this would be a slippery slope, particularly for cities like Ottawa and Toronto. If they pick and choose they are leaving themselves wide open for criticism. Besides, in many cases, who do you invoice?


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.
 
If you're looking at it through the lens of the handful of people stupidly talking about arresting the government or whatever then no they didn't arrest Trudeau and force a regime change. Big fail.

So what did they do?

-Shut down the capital's downtown. For good or for ill they taught the police, military, and other organizations some hard lessons. Lucky for Ottawa the protestors were non-violent (contrary to the best narrative attempts).
-Put on display the governments lame attempt to scare the public with "Nazis! In Canada!". No real surprise here, standard Liberal SOP.
-Put massive police ineptitude on display. Police grunts with out to lunch bosses are probably appreciating their high paid dumb-ass bosses getting called out.
-Reminded police (and others) to watch what they say over social media and in "private" chat rooms. Called out the Musical Horsey dummies.
I almost forgot about these clowns 🤣
 
Speaking of which whatever happened to that all-around-defense HQ site of scary looking men in a parking lot a few KMs away from down town?
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.
 
The fact that 2/3rds of Canadians approved of the EA (regardless if it was wrong to so) is a testament to that.
Troubling.
Disappointing as it may be, that up to two thirds of Canadians are unfamiliar with the risks that represents for our collective rights and freedoms is unsurprising.


Speaking generally:

I agree with the Ottawans... Ottawites... whatever as the case may be, that the disturbance caused by the protesters was excessive. I thought the same of some of the BLM/Antifa rioters in the US, and also of Jan 6. Based on our resident expert Brihard's testimony, the city and province should and could have acted much earlier, much stronger.

In my view, whatever may be presented at the inquiry is immaterial to my ability to make a judgement on the validity of the EA. The fact of the matter is, at the time it was invoked, the Government failed to make a case for it. It relied on emotional and dubious arguments such as the specter of Nazism and foreign influence (ahem Putin's playbook ahem).

The inquiry, then, is the LPC's trial.




Unrelated:
The tax plan in Quebec was never going to fly legally and a Legault knew that.
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.


Edit: structure.
 
Troubling.

Speaking generally:

I agree with the Ottawans... Ottawites... whatever as the case may be, that the disturbance caused by the protesters was excessive. I thought the same of some of the BLM/Antifa rioters in the US, and also of Jan 6. Based on our resident expert Brihard's testimony, the city and province should and could have acted much earlier, much stronger.

In my view, whatever may be presented at the inquiry is immaterial to my ability to make a judgement on the validity of the EA. The fact of the matter is, at the time it was invoked, the Government failed to make a case for it. It relied on emotional and dubious arguments such as the specter of Nazism and foreign influence (ahem Putin's playbook ahem). The inquiry, then, is the LPC's trial.

Disappointing as it may be, that up to two thirds of Canadians are unfamiliar with the risks that represents for our collective rights and freedoms is unsurprising.



Unrelated:

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.

As for public support for the EA, that’s potentially politically and electorally consequential, but it means nothing legally. The commission will be issuing findings on the factual circumstances leading up to the invocation of the EA. They won’t be ruling on whether it was lawfully applied. It will essentially be a massive fact finding and lessons learned exercise.

The actual Order in Council establishing the POEC’s mandate is here: https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/documents/Order-in-Council-Décret-2022-0392.pdf
 
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.

As for public support for the EA, that’s potentially politically and electorally consequential, but it means nothing legally.
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.

It's the same logic, I believe, that explains why Quebec has used S33 (while we're on the topic!) so extensively while other provinces have not at all. Once you get the ball rolling, it doesn't stop.
 
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.

No. S. 33 lets them ‘get around Charter rights’. S.1 is a tool the courts use to interpret what those rights mean. A legislature can invoke S.33 in the context of specific legislation, to allow that legislation to operate despite and notwithstanding specific Charter rights (specifically Ss. 2, and 7-15). Conversely, S.1 is a section used by the courts, via certain legal tests (particularly that established in Oakes to interpret the extent and manner of applicability of certain Charter rights in the context of a specific set of facts.

More simply, S.33 lets a legislature say “yeah, we don’t care, those sections don’t apply to this law”, and S.1 guides a court in determining “in this particular case, the way this law impacts certain rights is or is not reasonable, because…”
 
No. S. 33 lets them ‘get around Charter rights’. S.1 is a tool the courts use to interpret what those rights mean. A legislature can invoke S.33 in the context of specific legislation, to allow that legislation to operate despite and notwithstanding specific Charter rights (specifically Ss. 2, and 7-15). Conversely, S.1 is a section used by the courts, via certain legal tests (particularly that established in Oakes to interpret the extent and manner of applicability of certain Charter rights in the context of a specific set of facts.

More simply, S.33 lets a legislature say “yeah, we don’t care, those sections don’t apply to this law”, and S.1 guides a court in determining “in this particular case, the way this law impacts certain rights is or is not reasonable, because…”
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.

Bolded, coloured: which I abbreviated, for the sake of brevity (now thoroughly defeated), as ''invoke''.
~Anyhoo~
 
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.

Bolded, coloured: which I abbreviated, for the sake of brevity (now thoroughly defeated), as ''invoke''.
~Anyhoo~
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.

Sorry but I can’t at all agree at your ‘semantics’ dismissal. Ss. 1 and 33 are very, very different things, and apply very differently.
 
Refreshing a military angle ....
(...)


(...)
... here's the latest .....
A Canadian soldier who has publicly spoken out against the forced removal of hundreds of unvaccinated Armed Forces members is facing more charges.

Warrant Officer James Topp is now facing six counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline after the army reservist’s commanders laid four new charges against him last week.

The charge comes under the National Defence Act and is designed to enforce discipline in the ranks.


Two of the new charges are directly tied to Topp’s statements in two videos posted on social media in February, in which the Vancouver resident criticized vaccine requirements for military personnel and other federal employees.

The decision to charge Topp for making what military regulations call “improper comments” represents a shift as the military’s case against him was initially focused on his decision to wear a military uniform while criticizing the vaccine mandates, rather than on his actual statements.

The other new charges accuse Topp of wearing a uniform incorrectly. Topp is a reservist with the Royal Westminster Regiment, but appeared in the videos in a uniform for the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, with which he previously served.

A copy of the charge sheet was provided to The Canadian Press by Topp’s civilian lawyer, Phillip Millar, who said his client plans to fight the charges in military court ...
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.
 

Attachments

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 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.
 
Back
Top