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

[Navy_Pete]

Latin. "No one is heard alleging his own indecency"

I think I'll just accept I missed the joke on this one and move on!

 

[brihard]

Ha. The only reason I had the time is I woke up at 0530 and couldn't get back to sleep. I would imagine with a new bambino, sleep and spare time have become foreign concepts.

The one thing I find interesting in the ruling starts at [370] on P. 123 where he basically says his initial view was to agree with the government but changed his mind (and essentially congratulates a couple of the applicants for presenting a strong case). Usually, the Court tries to avoid hindsight, but no one is at jeopardy here and the case is more about policy, the legislative process and procedure so perhaps it was appropriate to take his approach.

Yeah, that was interesting. Although his comment is obiter, I will not be surprised to see it in the government factor on appeal. They have an uphill battle and will seize on an opportunity to bolster a claim to reasonable contemporaneous belief that a threat to the security of Canada existed.

 

[TacticalTea]

See I think this is a false comparison.

Other than the freezing of bank accounts, what was done with the use of the EA was exactly what would/should have happened by the OPS/OPP. The EA severely more or less jsut as the vehicle that gave the feds the authority to order things to be done that should have already been ordered by someone else. Do you consider the act of physically removing the occupiers as a "sludge hammer", or is just because the feds were the ones who ordered it?

@brihard just said the EA was not necessary for enforcement.

As for the freezing of bank accounts, I also don't consider that as a sledge hammer. It was temporary and short lived.

Not a sledgehammer to strand and starve innocent Canadians?

I think I'll just accept I missed the joke on this one and move on!

Not a great translation. In this case, turpitude means illicit behaviour.

My point was (and the meaning of the later phrase is) that the State cannot invoke its own incompetence to justify trampling the rights of citizens.

 

[brihard]

@brihard just said the EA was not necessary for enforcement.

No I did not. I said we didn’t need it to arrest and physically remove individual occupiers from downtown Ottawa. That’s the arcs I can speak to; I cannot speak to what was or was not ultimately needed elsewhere, or for removing vehicles. I’m not staking a position on whether other aspects of it ultimately proved necessary in other contexts.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My opinion only, but by the time the SCC takes this up the damage to the liberals, especially trudeau and freeland, will be done. Of course we can expect the liberals to push for speedy resolution from the court. Unfortunately, the SCC has lost trust with many Canadians. A positive judgment for trudeau will just be seen as more collusion between the court and the liberals. No matter the outcome, trudeau and the liberals are on the losing side of public opinion.

It's going to be interesting to see how many lawsuits against the government get filed before the February timeline expires.

 

[Lumber]

My opinion only, but by the time the SCC takes this up the damage to the liberals, especially trudeau and freeland, will be done. Of course we can expect the liberals to push for speedy resolution from the court. Unfortunately, the SCC has lost trust with many Canadians. A positive judgment for trudeau will just be seen as more collusion between the court and the liberals. No matter the outcome, trudeau and the liberals are on the losing side of public opinion.

It's going to be interesting to see how many lawsuits against the government get filed before the February timeline expires.

I really don't think anyone who up to this point felt the EA was justified is going to be moved by either this decision or any subsequent SCC decision.

I would say just about none of the people who supports the government's use of the EA conducted a critical analysis of the law and came to the conclusion that situation met the exact wording of the law; rather, those that support the government's use of the took it's assumed purpose "restore order within Canada" and assigned appropriateness based on their reading of the situation in Ottawa.

It's like when that guy a few years back in Toronto got arrested for unlawful confinement because he arrested a thief who stole from his store. His mistake was that he arrested the thief sometime after the theft; Canadian law says you can only arrest someone who is in the act of commiting the crime. I bet if you asked your average Canadian, they would have no problem with his actions, even though they were technically "illegal". Same goes for the use of the EA; no one who currently supports its use is going to care that it was deemed "unjustified". It certainly looked justified to us.

 

[Lumber]

Not a sledgehammer to strand and starve innocent Canadians?

Hyperbole, much?

First, bank accounts weren't frozen willy-nilly. The accounts belonged to those who were organizers, the truckers themselves, and those who contributed significant funds (if you donated $20, you weren't looked at). Further, you were only hit if you made donations after February 15th.
Second, only about 200 accounts were frozen as of February 17th, and by February 22nd, most of those had been unfrozen.
Third, the actual number of individuals was less than 200, given that some people had multiple accounts frozen.
Fourth, not all those people actually lost access to their "living money"; some accounts that were frozen were people's second or third accounts or accounts set up specifically for the protest.
Finally, other than (I'm assuming) the organizers, actual protestors could have avoided having their accounts frozen by simply leaving before this all kicked off. Further, almost as soon as they did start leaving, their bank accounts were unfrozen.

No one was stranded; no one starved.

Not a sledge hammer. It actually sounds like a very reasonable and proportionate application of the financially aimed capability.

 

[QV]

Hyperbole, much?

First, bank accounts weren't frozen willy-nilly. The accounts belonged to those who were organizers, the truckers themselves, and those who contributed significant funds (if you donated $20, you weren't looked at). Further, you were only hit if you made donations after February 15th.
Second, only about 200 accounts were frozen as of February 17th, and by February 22nd, most of those had been unfrozen.
Third, the actual number of individuals was less than 200, given that some people had multiple accounts frozen.
Fourth, not all those people actually lost access to their "living money"; some accounts that were frozen were people's second or third accounts or accounts set up specifically for the protest.
Finally, other than (I'm assuming) the organizers, actual protestors could have avoided having their accounts frozen by simply leaving before this all kicked off. Further, almost as soon as they did start leaving, their bank accounts were unfrozen.

No one was stranded; no one starved.

Not a sledge hammer. It actually sounds like a very reasonable and proportionate application of the financially aimed capability.

Thankfully the judge disagrees with you on this.

 

[Winds]

Other than the freezing of bank accounts, what was done with the use of the EA was exactly what would/should have happened by the OPS/OPP. The EA severely more or less jsut as the vehicle that gave the feds the authority to order things to be done that should have already been ordered by someone else. Do you consider the act of physically removing the occupiers as a "sludge hammer", or is just because the feds were the ones who ordered it?

As for the freezing of bank accounts, I also don't consider that as a sledge hammer. It was temporary and short lived.

The freezing of bank accounts is not a small thing. People's entire assets were frozen for having donated to a non-violent protest movement. This sets a concerning precedent, particularly given the perception of double standards on the part of the government.

...Large protest in downtown Ottawa in support of BLM, after similar protests had turned into violent riots in the U.S. with police stations being fire bombed, the PM attends in solidarity. Arsonists set dozens of Catholic churches ablaze... PM says that he "understands the anger felt" resulting from accusations of unmarked burial sites.

... Protests against the PM's own policies in downtown Ottawa, PM immediately makes remarks about how such people are racist, misogynistic, etc. and eventually freezes their bank accounts to disperse them by declaring it a national emergency.

No indication from the RCMP or CSIS that there was credible threat of violence (though CSIS Director recommended using the EA anyway). Government action relied on a novel legal interpretation which they refused to disclose during the public order inquiry, or during this trial... though they claim its sound. OPS directed the trucks where to park as the entered Ottawa from various directions, deconflicting their approaches to the downtown core (from OPS testimony). Parliament continued operating in person throughout, with many MPs (CPP) freely walking through the protest each day to get to the hill. Downtown businesses closed voluntarily, those that remained open made bank selling food/coffee to protestors... at least one of these businesses was later evicted seemingly as a response to their support of protestors.

The province had full ability to forcibly remove protestors had they determined the need to, including the ability to commandeer tow trucks... they were fully able to clear a similar protest on the Ambassador Bridge, after all.

 

[TacticalTea]

No I did not. I said we didn’t need it to arrest and physically remove individual occupiers from downtown Ottawa.

Which is the topic of the conversation. We're talking about arresting people in downtown Ottawa.

I cannot speak to what was or was not ultimately needed elsewhere, or for removing vehicles.

Yes you can.

You know full well that unattended vehicles which aren't properly parked can be removed from the premises.

You can't just say one thing because you want to disagree with QV, then pretend you didn't say it when it doesn't align with your political preferences anymore.

 

[Lumber]

... Protests against the PM's own policies in downtown Ottawa, PM immediately makes remarks about how such people are racist, misogynistic, etc. and eventually freezes their bank accounts to disperse them by declaring it a national emergency.

You're really glossing over how much time and effort was expended between the start of the process and when this eventually happening, implying that the decision was abrupt. It was not.

The freezing of bank accounts is not a small thing. People's entire assets were frozen for having donated to a non-violent protest movement. This sets a concerning precedent, particularly given the perception of double standards on the part of the government.

As I explained above, this is not correct. Only bank accounts were frozen, not all of a person's assets were confiscated.

 

[Lumber]

It was overbroad...

As explained above, no it was not. It was very targeted and limited.

...unjustified...

This is a matter of opinion. I do not believe it was, and neither does a good portion of the population.

...and illegal.

I'm actually curious what the actual definition/standard is here. The EA itself is legal, and the actions allowed to be taken under the EA are legal when the EA is enacted. The judge has said that the use of the EA was unjustified. Does that make the actions taken by those under the auspices of the EA illegal?

Does it matter what the state of mind of the government was at the time? If the government had a bona fide belief that the situation warranted the use of the EA, and were simply wrong, does that change whether their actions were actually "illegal" now that the judge has said the EA was unreasonable?

 

[QV]

Which is the topic of the conversation. We're talking about arresting people in downtown Ottawa.

Yes you can.

You know full well that unattended vehicles which aren't properly parked can be removed from the premises.

You can't just say one thing because you want to disagree with QV, then pretend you didn't say it when it doesn't align with your political preferences anymore.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing the pattern.

 

[Winds]

I'm actually curious what the actual definition/standard is here. The EA itself is legal, and the actions allowed to be taken under the EA are legal when the EA is enacted. The judge has said that the use of the EA was unjustified. Does that make the actions taken by those under the auspices of the EA illegal?

Does it matter what the state of mind of the government was at the time? If the government had a bona fide belief that the situation warranted the use of the EA, and were simply wrong, does that change whether their actions were actually "illegal" now that the judge has said the EA was unreasonable?

"Unjustified" was part of the ruling. The standard is also laid out in the judgement, if you care to read it.

Yes, the EA itself is legal. That doesn't mean the government can invoke its powers without meeting the threshold requirements set out in the act... the argument that they believe the definition of a "national emergency" is too narrow in the act (and should include non-violent protests against their policies) is simply their opinion.

That the government held a strong belief that they were justified is largely irrelevant in law. When the judge deems the action "unreasonable" it means that a well-informed, reasonable person would not deem the action to be justified. When the judge states that they government operated "ultra vires", it means that they used powers that they legally fid not have (because they failed to meet the justification requirements laid out in the EA).

For example, police are able to discharge their firearms in self-defence or to save the lives of others. Just because they can shoot suspects under those situations does not mean they can use that power when doing so doesn't meet specific legal requirements.

Just because you personally feel it was justified, and so do many others, does not mean that it was according to law. Many people may believe that capital punishment is justified in certain circumstances, doesn't make it allowed even if the prosecution has a "bona fide belief that the situation warranted" such a punishment.

 

[Winds]

You're really glossing over how much time and effort was expended between the start of the process and when this eventually happening, implying that the decision was abrupt. It was not.

You're also ignoring the fact that the protests had arguably become more civil as time went on... very little honking after the injunction was ordered, a plan had been agreed to with the city to move vehicles off several residential streets with over 40 vehicles already moved by the time the EA was invoked, border blockades had all been dismantled by provincial authorities, etc.

Spending time and effort on something does not make it "reasonable" or within the law. The government made sure to not disclose any of the legal opinions it received on the matter... why?

And yes, it was just people's financial assets that were frozen. I never claimed that any physical assets had been confiscated (except maybe some vehicles towed from the protests). Freezing someone's bank accounts makes them unable to pay for anything though... groceries, mortgage, etc. (unless of course they still carry sufficient cash).

Can you imagine if your bank accounts were frozen because you protested government policies? What if you had already lost your job and been denied EI as a result of those policies?

 

[QV]

The freezing of bank accounts impacted more than just the protesters. In some cases it impacted families and dependents. The judge spoke on this.

 

[Spencer100]

The freezing of bank accounts impacted more than just the protesters. In some cases it impacted families and dependents. The judge spoke on this.

And was the real reason that the PM and Freeland pulled back. They received a tap on the back from the Canadian Banker Assoc. the banks were seeing largest outflows of money in the history of the country. It was topping at billions an hours at one point. The banks got very very scared. If it had lasted much longer it would started a run that could not be supported. This was very little reported.

If they had not frozen the accounts we would be looking at very different outcome today.

 

[kratz]

Related to the federal court's decision, there is concurrent academic research into the long term effects of invoking the Emergency Act to suppress opposing protests. I attended Dr. Rozdilsky's presentation at a conference in Toronto last October. While his research will be published later this year, here is a brief article summarizing his presentation:

Rozdilsky, J.L., & Jani, M. (2023). Emergency Management’s last resort: The 2022 invocation of Canada’s Emergencies Act.
HazNet, 18(1), 37-40. Emergency Management’s last resort: The 2022 invocation of Canada’s Emergencies Act | HazNet

 

[QV]

I work with a colleague who has family in high level management in the banking and financial world. She had said similar statements at the time as you regarding the banks.

 

[Spencer100]

I work with a colleague who has family in high level management in the banking and financial world. She had said similar statements at the time as you regarding the banks.

Me too. I got it from bankers too.

The contingency banking plan would have gotten even the people who didn't support the truckers on the street. Freezing of foreign money transfers, and cash withdrawals. Negative interest rates, transfer caps, stock market trading curbs and halting. IMF and US bailout.