The first ten minutes encapsulate so much of what is wrong with this legislation.
Progressive Bloggers
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- How 'severe and unusual' smoke from Canadian wildfires is spreading and what it means for your health
- Diaspora groups join calls for public inquiry on foreign interference
- Zelenskyy calls for international aid as waters rise, Ukrainians flee homes after dam break
- Ah, here's your problem — there's a marmot stuck in your engine
- The Calgary affordable housing idea that divides conservatives, federal and local
- First Nation in B.C. pays almost $40,000 to bring 140-year-old robe home
- National Gallery of Canada appoints new director and CEO
- Hawaii's second largest volcano erupts on Big Island
- Canada attends first-of-its-kind UFO briefing at the Pentagon
- Young couple killed by Hamilton landlord to be honoured this weekend
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
9 comments
March 4, 2022 at 7:09 am
tildeb
And now we have at least 2 people fired for donating money to the Truckers convoy: one from a senior staffer from the Ontario government and an executive director from a major hospital.
These are not the actions of those who support the fundamental principles of liberal democracy but the actions of a totalitarian regime. This is what being deplorable looks like in action: not just for supporting intolerance against those with whom one disagrees but the very real punitive intolerance shielded by ‘progressive’ policies awarded to the kangaroo courts of Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals. Retribution.
All of this smacks of showing us in plain sight the religious nature of the progressive ideology and the demand to punish blasphemers.
LikeLike
March 5, 2022 at 11:22 am
The Arbourist
@ Tildeb
Donating to forces that threat our democratic institutions should not go without repercussions.
Feel free to donate to ISIS if you’d like, but also acknowledge there are consequences to your actions.
LikeLike
March 5, 2022 at 11:30 am
tildeb
Wow. Virtue signal much? Have you spent even 10 seconds hearing yourself?
Sure, BLM can get over a billion dollars donated with zero financial oversight or inquiry, with real riots and real property damage in the untold millions and real people hurt and killed but hey… the risk of the truckers movement justifies this level of vindictive retro action. Fuck civil rights: we’re got a NARRATIVE to support!
I cannot tell you just how wrong you are with this intolerant attitude, Arb. You’re going to have to figure it out on your own to realize the depth of shame you should feel for being so gullible. There is no excuse.
LikeLike
March 5, 2022 at 1:06 pm
Michelle
Oh no! No one cares about my convoy anymore because Putin has invaded the Ukraine. Thanks for another timely post Arbourist! Next thing you know someone is going to call you a sheep for choosing to get vaccinated. Such insult! LOL
LikeLike
March 5, 2022 at 1:43 pm
tildeb
When the Canadian government suspends your civil rights for a reason that is not an emergency described by the legislation itself, Michelle, it means the suspension is illegal. See if you can follow along here: if the government refuses to respect the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and activates a piece of legislation that does not meet its own stated reasons for being enacted, then the government itself is acting illegally. Why should any Canadian think a government that itself refuses to obey the law has any right to think legislation it enacts in the name of the respecting the law should be legally binding?
Then we get an intentional hack of anyone who donated to a protest. On this illegally obtained information, the government THEN uses then illegal legislation to command the banks to find these names on their membership lists and freeze whatever account a government legal representative says to freeze. No credit card., No bank withdrawal. No money. At all. Any assets seized. Any possessions seized. And the crime committed? Donating $100 to the truckers convoy protesting mandates months prior. A legal demonstration, a legal donation. Nothing illegal about any of it. But massive punishment outside of the courts. The government has targeted someone who COULD be you and done so in a way that allows you no legal recourse. None whatsoever. And we’re talking Canada here and not, say, North Korea or Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Communist China. Canada. in 2022.
Now we have people who think none of this is a big deal, that the hack was fine and acting on the names released is peachy. That such terrible people (who have done nothing legally wrong) should get… oh hell, let’s just fire their sorry asses! Seriously.
Now here’s the difficult part: imagine someone firing YOU for donating a hundred bucks to Arb for his website and blog that you think offers a valuable voice to consider… because some faceless and nameless virtue signaler thinks that, because you did such a terrible awful thing (we all know what a terrorist the Arb is because someone else claims he is), it’s all fine and dandy for you to get fired. You deserve it. In addition you have people claiming your donation to Arb is like donating to ISIS – a claim that has no relationship to the truth – and so you getting fired is both deserved and justifiable. Also, anyone who disagrees with the firing must themselves be terrible people… probably also involved with terrorist intentions. You know… one of them.
I would hope, Michelle, that more than a few people might take issue on your behalf and stand up for your right to support issues and people and activities that you think are important enough to invest a hundred dollars. I would hope very few people would make similar sanctimonious hand waving to excuse the bullies that would treat YOU this way not on behalf of anything true but on behalf that you are assumed to be a terrible person and any cause you support to be the worst elements in the world.
LikeLike
March 6, 2022 at 12:22 pm
The Arbourist
@ tildeb
If supporting our democratic institutions and protecting the values espoused in the Canadian Charter of rights is ‘virtue signalling’ then please sign me up. I’ll do a ‘virtue signal’ every time a false populist convoy blockade threatens our democracy.
“These illegal blockades are doing great damage to Canada’s economy and to our reputation as a reliable trading partner.
The blockade of the Ambassador Bridge has affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30 percent of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, our most important trading partner.
In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade has been affected by the blockades.
In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been affected by the blockades.
Blockades that were costing Canadians tens of millions dollars per day are valid justification for the measure enacted by the government.
Blocking public roadways and commerce is not a civil right, not under our Charter. So this isn’t a narrative, it is the law of the land.
“Section 2(c) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: R. v. Lecompte, [2000] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: Guelph (City) v. Soltys, [2009] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26.
Feel shame over the government moving to protect democratic institutions and the prosperity and safety of Canadians? Umm, no shame here. No group gets to circumvent the representative government process and illegally occupy the capitol.
LikeLike
March 6, 2022 at 12:58 pm
tildeb
When I highlighted, ” we’re (sic) got a NARRATIVE to support!”, I was hoping you’d at least take a moment to consider that maybe something else was going on here to impel me to comment the way I did. What might that be? What narrative?
Well, you’ve very nicely laid out the narrative used by our ‘liberal’ government to justify no legal oversight of the actions then taken. Well done, you. After all, if Arb can be fooled and used to this extent of defending a narrative that is not true in fact, surely he’ll come around to the narrative used to pretend men can be biological women.
The problem with what you’ve laid out is that you do not question either the validity or the veracity of the claims made to justify the implementation of the Emergencies Act. That’s the problem. Sure, blockades were illegal as was the occupation of downtown Ottawa. That’s not the issue. The blockades were removed PRIOR to the Emergencies Act. The occupation could have been similarly disbanded by police enforcing the law PRIOR to the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act is to be used when a national emergency arises:
“A national emergency is an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces and territories, or by any other law of Canada.”
The truckers convoy, blockades, and occupation did not meet any of these. Even the Solicitor General admits this.
So what’s a government to do? Sell a narrative that there really was a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Zero evidence of this. Zero violence of this. You’ve been sold a narrative that isn’t true in reality.
Meanwhile, under the Act, banks and financial institutions are ordered to find and immediately suspend the accounts of anyone who ‘supported’ this supposed threat to Canadian sovereignty. This has been done. Again, under this legislation, citizens have zero legal recourse. None. It’s a done deal. No one can be held accountable no have any need whatsoever to justify the action. You’re not only good with this, you are helping the government explain why this aided all of Canada.
So I raised another domino of this gong show: people who donated $100.00 to the movement as a way of protesting the useless vaccination mandates suddenly imposed on these ‘heroes’ (90% of whom were already vaccinated) who had been supplying you for the past two years with whatever food and necessities you needed were now and magically ‘national security threats’.
Seriously. Donating $100 targeted you as a threat so much so that your name was made available to everyone and stimulated the virtue warriors among us to support you getting fired for making a small and legal donation. Why? Because it threatened the security of the nation!
You see how the circle jerk going on here? Criticizing the NEEDLESS vaccination mandates by donating money to a movement that intended to bring this message to Parliament when NO POLITICAL PARTY WAS REPRESENTING YOUR LEGITIMATE CONCERNS suddenly makes you a deplorable citizen who deserves no legal protections.
Again, you’re good with that. In fact, like so many others who have succumbed to the allure of championing virtue on cue, you actually defend the indefensible. I’m not questioning your patriotism; I’m questioning your willingness to go along with a narrative and think well of yourself for doing so.
Maybe now you’ll have a better understanding of just how transactivists and government invertebrates can champion and go along with their narrative and think well of themselves for doing so. When what’s actually true no longer matters, when intention is rejected in the name of effect, you’ve joined the ranks of the Woke. THTAT is what I mean when I say you will feel ashamed of yourself. You’re better than this.
LikeLike
March 6, 2022 at 1:18 pm
The Arbourist
1. there is an urgent, temporary and critical
situation that seriously endangers the health
and safety of Canadians
2. the situation is beyond the capacity or authority
of a province or territory to deal with, and
3. the situation cannot be dealt with effectively under
any other federal, provincial or territorial law
Canadian Governmenet’s Justification –
The Proclamation Declaring a Public Order Emergency made on February 14, 2022 specified that
the public order emergency is constituted of:
(i) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various
locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the
blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with
activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious
violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of
achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada,
(ii) the adverse effects on the Canadian economy — recovering from the impact of the
pandemic known as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) — and threats to its
economic security resulting from the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure,
including trade corridors and international border crossings,
(iii) the adverse effects resulting from the impacts of the blockades on Canada’s
relationship with its trading partners, including the United States (U.S.), that are
detrimental to the interests of Canada,
2
(iv) the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods, services
and resources caused by the existing blockades and the risk that this breakdown will
continue as blockades continue and increase in number, and
(v) the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence that would further
threaten the safety and security of Canadians
The Federal Cabinet has to meet a standard, specifically to believe on reasonable grounds – “Second, to declare a public order emergency Cabinet need only establish that there is sufficient support to “believe, on reasonable grounds” that a public order emergency exists. This is a lower standard than “beyond reasonable doubt” or a “balance of probabilities.” Reasonable belief is an evidence-based belief that something is probable (Hunter v Southam Inc, [1984] 2 SCR 145 at 167). Courts have described it as a bona fide belief of serious possibility, based on credible evidence (Chiau v Canada, [2001] 2 FC 297 [FCA] at para 60).”
Where these outcomes probable? Yes, and I think that government acted appropriately within the bounds demarcated by the bill, specifically that they were acting to avoid probable outcomes that likely could occur if the illegal blockade was allowed to continue.
Are there serious concerns with enacting the EA for this situation? Absolutely This analysis from Ryan Alford. He’s a constitutional law expert, a professor at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University:
“The federal government has no jurisdictional basis for any of this. Which is to say that we’re in a huge crisis of the rule of law. It has done something that it has no constitutional power to do. What the Emergencies Act does is empower the federal government to take over powers, assigned under the Constitution, to the provinces. And it can only do that if very stringent conditions are met. This is not just a matter of statute, but the interpretation of the Constitution given to it by the Supreme Court of Canada. The best way into that, if anyone is interested, is to read Justice [Jean] Beetz’s dissent in a case called the Anti-Inflation Act reference.
In essence, what the government has done is falsely asserted that conditions exist that allow it to declare a state of emergency. And in making that false declaration, it has assumed powers to itself that it doesn’t have under the Constitution of Canada. And it has used that power to promulgate regulations that, because there’s no jurisdictional basis, are of no force in effect. And has used those regulations to infringe the Charter rights of Canadians. It’s essentially a layer cake of constitutional violations.”
So I can also see where the objections (and there are many of them detailed in the interview) are coming from. We cannot have the government doing end-runs around the Constitution and Charter either. The EA though as worded does not help the situation at all as the amount of wiggle room within the act is more than considerable.
The debate may now be on “the conditions that exist” – that allow the EA to be implemented. Given that interpretation and the level of doubt required to meet the criteria are both reasons for the fuzziness regarding the act, it would seem that much more discussion from both legal scholars and Canadians is required to improve the caliber of this legislation.
LikeLike
March 6, 2022 at 1:47 pm
tildeb
Notice that you keep going back to the blockades… all of which were removed PRIOR to the Emergencies Act being passed. So you can take those supposed reasons (that you believe are true based on no compelling evidence) off the table altogether. Nobody is questioning their illegality. No one is questioning the police’s job of enforcing the law. In fact, that the blockades were removed peacefully before the Act was passed demonstrates that the so-called ‘national emergency’ that we are told to believe existed at the time could not be handled without the emergency powers is not true; it’s a NARRATIVE. Reality shows us this is a narrative imposed on it as a handy substitute. It’s arationalization based on a belief – not reality – and so the belief WAS NOT REASONABLE.
Furthermore, to THEN excuse the firing of professionals weeks later but who donated MONTHS earlier is telling; you’re basing this ‘justification’ on nothing other than feelings of vindictiveness. The protest is done. So why now? That is not ‘reasonable grounds’ in any sense of the term because it accomplishes nothing but making citizens less likely to donate money to a protest. Just in case. And that serves our democracy how? By not speaking freely? By not acting freely? By not supporting criticism and dissent of government overreach? Look what you’ve enabled. Look at what you’re justifying. Understand that this is a harbinger. Now get fired for supporting criticism of transactivism, for criticizing government policy, for daring to speak up and speak out. THIS is the fallout of justifying fearful rationalizations and massive government overreach. But, apparently, you’re good with that.
Or are you REALLY? I suspect not. And for damned good reasons.
LikeLike