Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]
- Thread starter Quirky
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 22,630
- Points
- 1,090
Latin. "No one is heard alleging his own indecency"
- Reaction score
- 5,579
- Points
- 1,360
I have a question.......retro notwithstanding bill makes it go away??
- Reaction score
- 5,579
- Points
- 1,360
Call it what you want,......it was glorious to behold.
Not in the least. We were relying entirely under existing powers under the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act. In most cases our arrests and charges were for Mischief and Obstruction under the criminal code. I think breach of court order as well; my recollection on that’s a bit fuzzy and of course googling it is impossible today.
I can’t speak to enforcement beyond what happened on the ground in Ottawa’s downtown core.
- Reaction score
- 1,646
- Points
- 1,190
Aww thanks! I don't often consider my comments, as apt as they may be, to be "glorious". Very kind of you to say!
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,010
I didn't think so. Just another example of why this latest ruling is correct and the invoking of the EA was unnecessary and unlawful.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,800
- Points
- 1,260
Should this finding hold up when it gets the SCC is there no negative/punitive repercussions for politicians and public servants who enacted this ?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,010
It's somewhat more serious than a $16 orange juice in a London hotel... but I don't know...
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
That would mostly be a political matter for the next election. If anyone has a civil lawsuit going for damages and the court finds it relevant, that could certainly help their case.
Why would this stress out skippy? He’s more than happy to use this against JT.
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
I meant trudeau when I said Skippy. Just one of the names I have for him.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,054
- Points
- 1,160
Charter Section 24
Charterpedia - Section 24(1) – Remedies
Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
Provided the issue is the decision made as opposed to the authority to make said decision, for elected official its the ballot.
More on the decision
www.thebeaverton.com
Court rules convoy must return to Ottawa after finding Emergencies Act unreasonable
OTTAWA - Following the ruling that the Liberal government's 2022 use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable, a Federal judge has ordered that all convoy protestors be welcomed back to Ottawa and allowed to stay for as long as they possibly want.
www.thebeaverton.com
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,110
- Points
- 960
JT is Skippy.
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,110
- Points
- 960
My favourite (from CanadianGunNutz.com) has always been Shiny Pony.
Not really no. Skippy has been pp’s nickname from his own party for some time.
So it’s a bit confusing when people use it for Trudeau.
Winds
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 206
- Points
- 600
Notwithstanding clause is only used to keep a bill from being struck down (found invalid) by the court, like it did recently with the federal Impact Assessment Act. It would not change the court's decision on whether the invocation of the act was lawful. The Emergencies Act is no longer in use, so trying to pass such a motion now (retroactively) would just be a signal that the government knew invoking the act violated Charter rights but that they did it "notwithstanding". It is also not the act itself that was found to be unlawful, but the government's use of it.
The matter went beyond Charter violations though, as the judge ruled the invocation was "ultra vires", or outside of the law. To be lawful, the government likely would have needed to amend the Emergencies Act.
Last edited:
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,460
- Points
- 1,010
Actually, Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets both the extent of those rights and freedoms and the limits that can be put on them by governments. It is not only the "notwithstanding" clause that can limit such rights and freedom, any law that meets Section 1 limits can also do so. While the courts do claim to look at those limits in their decisions, there is actually very little case law arising from cases where the government would have attempted to provide evidence of the elements of that limit, which are that the limits are "demonstrably justified" and are so in "free and democratic societies".
The Section reads as follows, for anyone interested (my underlining):
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In most cases, the courts simply state and come to the conclusion that limits exceed that last bit and basically set themselves up as sole experts on what constitutes a free and democratic society, but I have yet to hear of a case where the government attempted to use limits found in the laws of other countries that could be considered free and democratic by asking the courts to actually look at those countries and determine, factually, that they are free and democratic.
I think that would be a nice trick. After all, what constitutes a "democratic" society when you live in a country - Canada - that does not elect nor has ever elected it's government, but where that government is appointed at the sole discretion of the Monarch - tradition aside. I can think of so many countries where the head of state and the governments are actually elected by the people.
And that is the crux here, isn't it. The Emergencies Act requires the proof that the emergency at issue meet the definition set out in the relevant section of the CSIS Act. Even the head of CSIS at the time told them that it did not, and he wasn't the only professional head of department who expressed that position to the government at the time. Unlike the political commission that was struck to look into it and came down on the side of the government - all the while also recommending that the CSIS definition be removed - the courts have no choice but to look at the actual Act as drafted by Parliament and at the factual evidence provided in support of either parties at trial.
The Section reads as follows, for anyone interested (my underlining):
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In most cases, the courts simply state and come to the conclusion that limits exceed that last bit and basically set themselves up as sole experts on what constitutes a free and democratic society, but I have yet to hear of a case where the government attempted to use limits found in the laws of other countries that could be considered free and democratic by asking the courts to actually look at those countries and determine, factually, that they are free and democratic.
I think that would be a nice trick. After all, what constitutes a "democratic" society when you live in a country - Canada - that does not elect nor has ever elected it's government, but where that government is appointed at the sole discretion of the Monarch - tradition aside. I can think of so many countries where the head of state and the governments are actually elected by the people.
And that is the crux here, isn't it. The Emergencies Act requires the proof that the emergency at issue meet the definition set out in the relevant section of the CSIS Act. Even the head of CSIS at the time told them that it did not, and he wasn't the only professional head of department who expressed that position to the government at the time. Unlike the political commission that was struck to look into it and came down on the side of the government - all the while also recommending that the CSIS definition be removed - the courts have no choice but to look at the actual Act as drafted by Parliament and at the factual evidence provided in support of either parties at trial.
Similar threads
