Please Discuss

Wingboy said:
Another thread with questionable source.
Click to expand...
I saw the source was super questionable so I looked elsewhere. Many sources are available. The ones I have seen all reported "unreasonable" but I haven't seen "unconstitutional" from a less biased source. The important point for me is court has decided that JT panicked about the scary truckers and responded inappropriately. That should be no surprise to anyone.
 
ToSlow said:
First source ... right leaning

Second source.... left leaning

??
Click to expand...
Yes but "unreasonable" is actually quoted from the judge. "Unconstitutional" only appears on very right websites. Don't extend the judges decision to match your politics. Stick with the facts. Finding the actual full text of the judges decision is harder than it should be as no sources link the actual document.
 
GreyGhost said:
Yes but "unreasonable" is actually quoted from the judge. "Unconstitutional" only appears on very right websites. Don't extend the judges decision to match your politics. Stick with the facts. Finding the actual full text of the judges decision is harder than it should be as no sources link the actual document.
Click to expand...
He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891
The two men whose bank accounts were frozen also argued that that their rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights were violated, but Mosley disagreed.

Directly from the CBC article.
 
What does "beyond the scope of the law" mean? Is there a word for it that isn't latin?
Was the lawsuit a constitutional challenge to the government's actions?
 
raginduck said:
Click to expand...
Thanks. As expected, the "unconstitutional" drum being banged is a stretch. "Unreasonable" is a much better term well supported by the decision.

Best I had before that was this clip.

GEit-2zXsAAROhB
 
Either way, very heavy handed way of dealing with a isolated issue. This Act should be used when there is an actual threat to the nation. Not just because they can't find a solution or don't want to deal with it.
 
sburns said:
Either way, very heavy handed way of dealing with a isolated issue. This Act should be used when there is an actual threat to the nation. Not just because they can't find a solution or don't want to deal with it.
Click to expand...
As expected, a child throws a tantrum when they don't get their way immediately. Tantrums normally have consequences in the future.
 
timtune said:
Why they didn't just bring in some military wreckers and haul off the illegally parked vehicles I'll never know. Jt and DoFo havnen't one nut between them.
Click to expand...
It was either a municipal issue or a National Capital Commission problem once the convoy got off the provincial highways. The PM, mayor of Ottawa and Ottawa police chief showed their colours and they were yellow. They had weeks to make diversions, detour them to Cochrane.

DoFo just made popcorn. Ford probably enjoyed hearing that JT was hiding under his bed
 
"The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern," he wrote. "But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act, particularly as there was no evidence of a similar 'hardened cell' elsewhere in the country, only speculation, and the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence."

I find the Judge's finding rather callous if this is the reason for him to call the invocation of the act unreasonable. As much as I hate the Federales at the moment, glad that "Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters at a cabinet retreat in Montreal that the government plans to appeal the decision."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom