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

[YZT580]

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.

one person treated in such a fashion is one too many. There was nothing illegal about the actual protest so organizing it wasn't a crime and contributing to it shouldn't have justified having your ability to buy groceries curtailed.

 

[Spencer100]

Before the dark times, before the Trudeaupia, The PM and King's Ministers would have resigned over this and asked the GG for an election. But we have no shame or take responsibility for actions.

 

[Spencer100]

I don't understand people defending the use of EA. It is the breakglass in case of piece of law. To be used never. only in cases like "Mr Prime Minister the landing boats are about to hit Halifax" or The missiles are in bound. We have lost contact with London. or 11 divisions have crossed the DMZ and Seoul is burning. etc

 

[Furniture]

I don't understand people defending the use of EA. It is the breakglass in case of piece of law. To be used never. only in cases like "Mr Prime Minister the landing boats are about to hit Halifax" or The missiles are in bound. We have lost contact with London. or 11 divisions have crossed the DMZ and Seoul is burning. etc

This is what I find interesting as well.

As you said, it was designed to be used in the most dire of need, not because some people were loud and annoying in downtown Ottawa. It was a crass political play that has weakened Canada. All so one party could bolster their polling numbers right after an election...

 

[brihard]

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

The conversation is about the entire situation. I’m speaking to my narrow, if significant experience in one part of it.

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.

No I cannot, and you’re not sufficiently informed or qualified to try to tell me what I can and cannot stake a firm and definite position on that’s within my arcs. I’m well aware of the legal vehicle removal authorities under the HTA, or to seizing vehicles as evidence in the Criminal Code. The question of whether additional emergency powers were necessary goes beyond legal authorities into bigger picture questions such as effective and willing resources and other logistical concerns. I had no part of that and cannot speak to it. I’m not saying the EA proclamation was necessary for that, and I’m not saying it wasn’t. I lean strongly to believing it was not, but that’s from the outside looking in. On the other part of it, the financial freezes, I had a chance to read that part of the decision. The court found there was insufficient standard of evidentiary belief applied, and as such it was a breach of s.8 and insufficiently narrow in scope to save the actions under s.1 of the Charter. From my first look at it, I agree with that.

And, all that said, even if I or others believed the emergency proclamation was necessary to accomplish a specific task in a certain time (I do not), that would not suffice to justify it overall if the law just doesn’t support it. I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that the court has ruled against it, that doesn’t trouble me at all, and I don’t have anything invested in which way that case went or whose opinion goes which way. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in trying to force my opinion into a pidgeonhole here, but I’ll speak for me, thanks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Before the dark times, before the Trudeaupia, The PM and King's Ministers would have resigned over this and asked the GG for an election. But we have no shame or take responsibility for actions.

Agreed. This should trigger an election.

But alas we have to wait until 2025.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

I'm not convinced they have or had the ability to "commandeer tow trucks". Having the authority to remove vehicles does not necessarily imply that they can dragoon a private business to do their bidding.

If Ontario had made a declaration under its own Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, I can well imagine the same arguments would have been made that bouncy castles, horns and hot tubs do not an emergency make. Even if they did, Section 7.0.2(4) says that an order can be made:

12. Authorizing, but not requiring, any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is reasonably qualified to provide.​

Heavy recovery operators were reluctant to get involved because they didn't want to run up against their client base. As well, they wanted some assurance that their liability would be covered. Claims arising from civil unrest are typically excluded.

The police were able to clear the Ambassador Bridge protest because Windsor PS and the OPP (with the assistance of others) quickly established a workable plan, something Ottawa PS sorely lacked. I don't recall from watching the coverage that a whole lot of towing happened. Similar to Ottawa, once things started moving, most people bugged out on their own.

 

[dapaterson]

OPS is a tire fire of a shitshow of a disaster at the best of times.

This was not the best of times.

 

[brihard]

I don't recall from watching the coverage that a whole lot of towing happened. Similar to Ottawa, once things started moving, most people bugged out on their own.

A lot of them frigged off when they saw us coming, but dozens of vehicles were removed by tow, including some (not many) heavy trucks.

I remember one super uncomfortable moment as we were taking back Wellington in front of Parliament, one guy started up his truck about twenty meters in front of our advancing line and was revving his engine. After about thirty seconds he reversed out, but the pucker factor was something else for that minute. We were jammed into our line between a building and the Parliament fence and basically had nowhere to go.

 

[Lumber]

I don't understand people defending the use of EA. It is the breakglass in case of piece of law. To be used never. only in cases like "Mr Prime Minister the landing boats are about to hit Halifax" or The missiles are in bound. We have lost contact with London. or 11 divisions have crossed the DMZ and Seoul is burning. etc

It's not the "war measures act" anymore. There are non-war purposes for it outside of all the war related ones you listed.

 

[Lumber]

All so one party could bolster their polling numbers right after an election...

See, this is why I don't feel like a lot of those on your aide of the debate are not making an honest assessment of the situation. You are convinced, without any evidence, that this whole situation was purposefully concocted or at least worsened by the LPC as a way to gain political points. Its conspiracy, pure conjecture, and it cloud your ability to see how this was done late, begrudgingly, and temporarily.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

See, this is why I don't feel like a lot of those on your aide of the debate are not making an honest assessment of the situation. You are convinced, without any evidence, that this whole situation was purposefully concocted or at least worsened by the LPC as a way to gain political points. Its conspiracy, pure conjecture, and it cloud your ability to see how this was done late, begrudgingly, and temporarily.

So your mental gymnastics gives you better insight than the judge that had every available piece of evidence, years of practicing law, learned collegues to consult with and an appointment to the federal bench?

Conspiracy, sure

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm starting to think the government's appeal to the SCC, is more than it appears. Any bets that when this comes up in the Commons, every question will be met with "Mister Speaker, as this matter is still in front of the courts, we will not be commenting."

 

[TacticalTea]

See, this is why I don't feel like a lot of those on your aide of the debate are not making an honest assessment of the situation. You are convinced, without any evidence, that this whole situation was purposefully concocted or at least worsened by the LPC as a way to gain political points. Its conspiracy, pure conjecture, and it cloud your ability to see how this was done late, begrudgingly, and temporarily.

I don't see how one could plan to gain political points with this. Very much a roll of the dice.

I think it's just arrogance. Hubris.

Trudeau ignored instances of terrorism (infrastructure attacks, church burnings) elsewhere in Canada yet treats this protest, however displeasing it may be, with an iron fist?

Makes no sense at all. Obvious ideological purity at play.

 

[brihard]

I'm starting to think the government's appeal to the SCC, is more than it appears. Any bets that when this comes up in the Commons, every question will be met with "Mister Speaker, as this matter is still in front of the courts, we will not be commenting."

SCC may not end up hearing it. This was a judicial review in Federal Court. Next step is the federal court of appeals, which should have three justices hear it. If FCA returns a unanimous decision, SCC would only hear it if they give leave to appeal. That would only happen if the appellant (whichever side that be) is able to articulate compelling grounds for appeal.

I’m speculating, but if a panel of the FCA affirm the FC decision unanimously, I would be surprised to see SCC take it up.

 

[Furniture]

See, this is why I don't feel like a lot of those on your aide of the debate are not making an honest assessment of the situation. You are convinced, without any evidence, that this whole situation was purposefully concocted or at least worsened by the LPC as a way to gain political points. Its conspiracy, pure conjecture, and it cloud your ability to see how this was done late, begrudgingly, and temporarily.

I'm not saying the LPC created the protests intentionally, nor am I saying they were smart enough to understand that their rhetoric during the protests made things worse.

What I am saying is that they used the EA to gain political points after things had already become a gong show.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't see how one could plan to gain political points with this. Very much a roll of the dice.

I think it's just arrogance. Hubris.

Trudeau ignored instances of terrorism (infrastructure attacks, church burnings) elsewhere in Canada yet treats this protest, however displeasing it may be, with an iron fist?

Makes no sense at all. Obvious ideological purity at play.

It does when you you recognise his narcissism. Burning churches, terrorist attacks on pipeline companies are not personal to him. He could care less about those. The convoy, in his feeble mind, was a personal attack against him and his plans to subjugate Canadians with covid mandates. His solution was to invoke the EA and make a beeline to hide out at his cottage.

 

[QV]

Though some folks might not agree with this latest ruling, and I certainly wouldn't agree if it gets overturned... I think we can all agree that Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As I said earlier, if the SCC overturns it, most Canadians will just assume more conniving by the Laurentien Elites. We'll see what next week's polls bring us. I suspect another drop in liberal points.

 

[YZT580]

I'm starting to think the government's appeal to the SCC, is more than it appears. Any bets that when this comes up in the Commons, every question will be met with "Mister Speaker, as this matter is still in front of the courts, we will not be commenting."

clever if true