Trudeau's Invocation of Emergencies Act 2022 Unjustified Federal Court Ruled

[IceJad]

Federal court rules Emergencies Act invocation 'not justified'

The federal government says it plans to appeal a ruling by the Federal Court stating that its use of the Emergencies Act to shut down the so-called Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa two years ago was “not justified.”

www.ctvnews.ca

Well it might be 2 years too late but boy does it taste sweet, bitter sweet. This shows that the government when not put in check always abuses the power given. When later put to the scale is usually found wanting. All the heavy handedness the Canadian truckers and their supporters endured must be ratified with all haste. The Trudeauian government must be subjected to punishment to the fullest extent of the law for the breach of constitutional rights.

Someone must be in jail for this and that someones must be the head and high ranking officers of the Liberal Party of Canada that makes up the administration.

 

[timothyu]

This will upset a lot of people who think they have the right to shut down anyone who offends them or offers a counter concept.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Federal court rules Emergencies Act invocation 'not justified'

The federal government says it plans to appeal a ruling by the Federal Court stating that its use of the Emergencies Act to shut down the so-called Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa two years ago was “not justified.”

www.ctvnews.ca

Well it might be 2 years too late but boy does it taste sweet, bitter sweet. This shows that the government when not put in check always abuses the power given. When later put to the scale is usually found wanting. All the heavy handedness the Canadian truckers and their supporters endured must be ratified with all haste. The Trudeauian government must be subjected to punishment to the fullest extent of the law for the breach of constitutional rights.

Someone must be in jail for this and that someones must be the head and high ranking officers of the Liberal Party of Canada that makes up the administration.

I don't think they'll hold themselves accountable.

 

[IceJad]

I don't think they'll hold themselves accountable.

Sadly the case. It reminds me of a letter Tolkien wrote about "good" people obtaining unlimited power. Paraphrasing here - They would make good detestable and seem evil. For they will remain righteous but self-righteous. They will continue to do "good" but only according to themselves.

 

[Chesterton]

Sadly the case. It reminds me of a letter Tolkien wrote about "good" people obtaining unlimited power. Paraphrasing here - They would make good detestable and seem evil. For they will remain righteous but self-righteous. They will continue to do "good" but only according to themselves.

What Tolkien wrote may have some relation to an earlier bit from G. K. Chesterton:

"The modern world is not evil; in some ways, the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered ... it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage."​

 

[timothyu]

They will continue to do "good" but only according to themselves.

And it may be political suicide to think expanding a voter base by catering to the extreme will insure power. The majority of all parties including his own (but not him), tend to naturally avoid the extreme. The goal now of Canadians is to throw off the shackles of the WEF that T has imposed. The US should consider doing the same. Build Back Better indeed. No wonder this year's WEF motto is Regain Trust. I hope not. People are starting to wake up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sadly the case. It reminds me of a letter Tolkien wrote about "good" people obtaining unlimited power. Paraphrasing here - They would make good detestable and seem evil. For they will remain righteous but self-righteous. They will continue to do "good" but only according to themselves.

I'm reminded of machiavelli and despite multiple reads and interpretation....

I don't think anyone gets it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trudeau has a, let's call it,... "unique" sense of freedom of speech and expression.

Free speech has limits, Canada's PM Trudeau says

"We will always defend freedom of expression," Trudeau said in response to a question about the right to show a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, as France's Charlie Hebdo magazine did

www.tbsnews.net

Based on some of his comments about it in the past, it would seem he doesn't really grasp the concept.


A big red flag is when anyone (and I don't care which side or which country) cites the "fire in the crowded theater" trope.

Much like the originator of that analogy (Oliver Holmes, who was doing it to try to squash the legitimate expression of someone who was protesting against a war), almost without exception, anyone I hear citing that is almost always railing against something that should be constitutionally protected speech, and appealing to that reductio ad absurdum hypothetical in place of an argument with actual substance.

How I know that? Simple...it's because if it was some form of speech/expression that actually carried liabilities to the rights of other individuals, they'd be citing something out of the codified criminal code, and not some bumper sticker slogan from 100 years ago originally coined by a guy who had an axe to grind against draft dodgers.

You ever notice how if someone uses their speech/expression to attempt to hire a hitman to kill someone, or directly tries to encourage someone else to violate the rights of another person, nobody has to fallback on the "Oh, well what about fire in a crowded theater???" schtick as a rebuttal? Seems that only occurs when the topic is in the realm of "there's this idea I don't like, and people are verbalizing it and that upsets me!, but I have no solid argument against it, so fires & theaters!"