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

[lenaitch]

Good thing too. Unlike Ottawa Transit, TTC does not have heavy wreckers.

Well, the TPS does, if you get my drift.

 

[childs56]

Who, when and where?

Dogwood group, Transmountain/ Northern Gateway, Energy East etc Industry protests Federal/ Provincial funding.
The CBC spreading false information about foreign funding and support for the convoy protests.
Pembina Institute gov funding paid actors numerous protests over the years,
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Federal Funding against Oil Sands
David Suzuki Foundation, paid protesters and activists funding from government against Logging, Mining and Oil and Gas projects.
The Government supports with grants numerous groups who directly take action against resource Industry, that funding has increased since 2016.
The RCMP bombed an oilsite in Alberta on October 14, 1998, on the instructions of the Alberta Energy Co
These are a few. You can research directly their involvement if you have the time and actual will to open the eyes.

This does not bring into the account of Foreign Government funding and influence brought against Canada at various protests.

 

[Brad Sallows]

At CBC.ca, Trudeau is quoted: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the notwithstanding clause to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

Change a couple of words: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the Emergencies Act to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm not reading a lot into it. It struck me as a conversation between two people, one of which - at least - having an incomplete understanding of the NDA. If it was a full court press by a command team with SMEs, legal, etc. trying to sell an idea I would have been concerned.

I wouldn't expect a police leader to have a working knowledge of the NDA any more than I would expect the CDS to have a working knowledge of our Police Services Act. The foundation of what you know is learned at the coalface; most of what follows is enhancement and/or supervisory/leadership. I couldn't find a detailed breakdown of Lucki's experience but it seems her actual law enforcement delivery experience was rather short.

Don't conflate a lofty position with a broad and encompassing first-hand knowledge of what they command. The OPP had a Commissioner who's sum total of actual law enforcement delivery was about seven years in a traffic detachment.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the head of the national police force to have a basic understanding of the role of the CAF in any 'aid to civil power' scenario, as it should be part of the basic background understanding for any major disaster response. She's been in the job since 2018 so it should have come up a number of times by now, especially with the various disaster relief efforts and evacuations.

She doesn't generally inspire confidence, but maybe she's awesome in person and just doesn't translate well into public appearances.

 

[Navy_Pete]

At CBC.ca, Trudeau is quoted: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the notwithstanding clause to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

Change a couple of words: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the Emergencies Act to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

False equivalence; the ON government has a number of tools they haven't even looked at yet, and they are pre-empting any strike action before it's even started, and will have long reaching implications for thousands of people with no recourse. They could have gone into arbitration, kept negotiating, etc before looking at this option.

The emergency act wasn't brought in until several weeks into it, was limited in scope, and was rolled up pretty quickly with a public inquiry.

I think the demand for an 11.7% raise is nuts, and 'return to work' legislation has happened before well into the strike, but this is like nuking the thing before it starts.

 

[FSTO]

I think people's minds have been made up on invoking the Emergencies Act. That is certainly the mood I get on this site. And no amount of evidence brought forward from either cohort is going to change the other cohorts opinions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you think it's a false equivalence because of the details you missed the point entirely, which is to highlight how selectively politicians deploy criticism.

 

[brihard]

At CBC.ca, Trudeau is quoted: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the notwithstanding clause to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

Change a couple of words: "The suspension of peoples' rights is something that you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the Emergencies Act to suspend peoples' rights and freedoms."

The Emergencies Act did not inherently supersede rights. It explicitly remained subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s right in the Act; it has no Charter override.

The comparison being made is to Doug Ford’s intended use of legislation to trample collective bargaining rights, and his use of the Notwithstanding Clause to do so. Any invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause is explicitly, and by definition, superseding rights- it means the government acknowledges that what they want to do would NOT constitute “reasonable limitations” under s. 1, that can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Doug Ford has in effect said “we will specifically suppress your protected Charter right to protectively bargain, and we know the only way we can do so is by using a mechanism that lets us set that right aside without having to defend our actions legally”.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If you think it's a false equivalence because of the details you missed the point entirely, which is to highlight how selectively politicians deploy criticism.

Context also matters.

Shooting someone in self defence is okay; in other cases it can be murder.

Invoking the not withstanding clause to prevent a possible future strike instead of negotiating is not the same thing at all. It's basically lazy, and they are taking away people's legal right to strike before they even exercised it, which is a really important tool when dealing with the governments and large companies given the large power imbalance. A more comparable context would be invoking the Emergency Act in Jan when the protest was gathering before they even started their trip across.

I don't know if the Emergency Act was necessary, but ignoring the context of the two situations is just silly. Both are supposed to be 'last resort' items, the ON PC approach on this one is more of 'we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas'. Also, it had already been declared an illegal gathering, well after the point where people had crossed the line from exercising their right to protest and were infringing on other's basic rights.

From what I've seen, it seems like better local leadership and coordination with other forces was required generally in Ottawa at the upper levels, but maybe the EA gave them the tools/topcover to actually get the towing capacity, so maybe a wash on that. Not a fan of it being used to freeze people's accounts either, and doesn't seem to have necessarily even targeted the right accounts, but doesn't necessarily mean it didn't give them tools they didn't have.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Your counterargument is to quibble over the exact pathway by which a right is abridged? Knock yourself out.

[Add: Moral of recent stories: not only should stuff be written down, it should be written down carefully. Don't get panties wound up when someone stretches customary or open-ended rules.]

 

[Lumber]

Your counterargument is to quibble over the exact pathway by which a right is abridged? Knock yourself out.

Yes. Do you really live so black and white?

Trampling someone's rights through the use of force is worse than trampling someone's right through the use of force through a carefully constructed process that itself has checks and balances (limits) to its use. Similarly, trampling someone's rights through a legal process that has not yet met a reasonable substantiation is worse than one that has met a threshold.

Or a more specific, albeit extreme, example: two people have their mobility rights taken away. One is a person who's been put in prison after due process, the other is someone who's been abducted. Are you saying both are equally bad, because the pathway that their right was "abridged" doesn't matter?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Both scenarios have processes (objective); both scenarios have limits (objective); both scenarios are supposed to be "reasonable" (subjective). [By "scenarios" I mean use of the EA and use of the "notwithstanding clause.]

[Add: the "notwithstanding" clause is designed to be pre-emptive; it's not particularly suited to being a last resort.
I despise the "notwithstanding" clause, but the only way to get rid of it will be to use it until people are convinced it was a bad idea.]

 

[lenaitch]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the head of the national police force to have a basic understanding of the role of the CAF in any 'aid to civil power' scenario, as it should be part of the basic background understanding for any major disaster response. She's been in the job since 2018 so it should have come up a number of times by now, especially with the various disaster relief efforts and evacuations.

She doesn't generally inspire confidence, but maybe she's awesome in person and just doesn't translate well into public appearances.

"Basic understanding" perhaps, and I suppose where that line is, is somewhat gray. The NDA is 288 sections. The Criminal Code is 850 and I would challenge any cop, lawyer or judge to have an in-depth knowledge of every part of it.

As a former boss said (not Commissioner but damned close); 'I have people for that'. Quite frankly, for any Chief or Commissioner to get involved in the nitty gritty of an emergency response strikes me as misplaced. Their executive role is to facilitate, enable and empower.

 

[Remius]

"Basic understanding" perhaps, and I suppose where that line is, is somewhat gray. The NDA is 288 sections. The Criminal Code is 850 and I would challenge any cop, lawyer or judge to have an in-depth knowledge of every part of it.

As a former boss said (not Commissioner but damned close); 'I have people for that'. Quite frankly, for any Chief or Commissioner to get involved in the nitty gritty of an emergency response strikes me as misplaced. Their executive role is to facilitate, enable and empower.

Or the flip side, since we might partake in any aid to civil power, do we expect our CDS to have in depth knowledge of the criminal code or any of the police services acts we might have some hand on the rare chance that might come into effect? I’m going to go ahead and doubt the CDS is tracking much in any police act other than knowing they might exist.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or the flip side, since we might partake in any aid to civil power, do we expect our CDS to have in depth knowledge of the criminal code or any of the police services acts we might have some hand on the rare chance that might come into effect? I’m going to go ahead and doubt the CDS is tracking much in any police act other than knowing they might exist.

I'm guessing that the CDS knows what he's doing.

His political masters? Not so much...

 

[brihard]

I'm guessing that the CDS knows what he's doing.

His political masters? Not so much...

I suspect the CDS would know it’s time to talk to his people and draw on technical expertise he can’t be expected to have himself.

 

[CBH99]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the head of the national police force to have a basic understanding of the role of the CAF in any 'aid to civil power' scenario, as it should be part of the basic background understanding for any major disaster response. She's been in the job since 2018 so it should have come up a number of times by now, especially with the various disaster relief efforts and evacuations.

She doesn't generally inspire confidence, but maybe she's awesome in person and just doesn't translate well into public appearances.

Given she’s been on the job since 2018, I’d say she comes across as a bit of a dud.

These days I find the morale of the country to be in the tank, because the people out in charge of our various national institutions leave something to be desired.

In her case though, she has a plate more loaded than most of her colleagues in charge of municipal agencies. She has officers literally across the country, several investigations being international at any given time, has police officers deploy overseas, constant contact negotiations with different partners, negotiations between members & their respective body for pay increases, national security threats, etc etc

I think as the leader of the national police service, part of that job IS TO INSPIRE CONFIDENCE

Her agency doesn’t just represent Canada & Canadians, but her agency has a unique opportunity to trample citizens rights & thwart one of the pillars of our society, if things aren’t done a certain way.

So let’s hope she’s more competent sounding off-camera.

 

[brihard]

PRes recruiting has entered the chat

Also, mods- might be worth a thread split? The Ontario education/strike tangent will likely continue, as will the convoy talk.

 

[lenaitch]

Given she’s been on the job since 2018, I’d say she comes across as a bit of a dud.

These days I find the morale of the country to be in the tank, because the people out in charge of our various national institutions leave something to be desired.

In her case though, she has a plate more loaded than most of her colleagues in charge of municipal agencies. She has officers literally across the country, several investigations being international at any given time, has police officers deploy overseas, constant contact negotiations with different partners, negotiations between members & their respective body for pay increases, national security threats, etc etc

I think as the leader of the national police service, part of that job IS TO INSPIRE CONFIDENCE

Her agency doesn’t just represent Canada & Canadians, but her agency has a unique opportunity to trample citizens rights & thwart one of the pillars of our society, if things aren’t done a certain way.

So let’s hope she’s more competent sounding off-camera.

I won't get into whether she is competent or "a dud". Although it is a valued asset these days, how one comes off in public settings does not always necessarily reflect how competent an executive leader they are. I'm sure many of us know folks in senior positions who never met a microphone they didn't like but that was the extent of their charm.

No doubt she has more on her plate than most other police leaders, but she also has a bigger command team and bureaucratic support structure to match.

In my initial comment, I qualified that her musing about possibly putting CAF members in police uniforms (or whatever it was) might have simply been her spitballing in the absence of a full understanding of the NDA, and in the absence of input from her command team and civilian advisors. If it had been done in the mess/lounge with staff members, we would never have known.

I could be wrong in the federal setting, but I am guessing that federal-provincial/municipal policing contracts as well as employee collective agreements are handled by Treasury Board, with advice and input by RCMP staff.

 

[CBH99]

You are absolutely correct. I just re-read what I wrote, and it didn’t convey what I wanted to say very well.

She does have a lot on her plate. And while she does have more supporting assets available to her to handle such a large & diverse organization, I’m sure there were a few very qualified people who opted for the spot — and she’s the one who got it.

So I imagine she is more qualified/competent/experienced, etc than she sometimes comes across as the odd time I’ve watched her speak.

(I initially said “let’s hope she’s more…blah blah blah. But the above is more what I meant.)