Canadian Politics Redux

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

It’s not even Trudeau reusing the EA that I’m concerned about, although I could see him using it in regards to his environmental agenda. If he truly is clean on the use of the EA then Trudeau should have no problem with an open and transparent examination of what occurred and why (except his default setting is to cover up, as we’ve seen over 7 years now).

I’ve considered all the situations we’ve seen play out that were worse than what happened in Ottawa (remember, the border blockades were pretty much dealt with by the time Trudeau decided to do anything other than slander) where the EA wasn’t used (G20 in Toronto, hockey riots, Occupy movement, “land defender” blockades, railroad blockades, tree occupations). I’ll say again, if Ottawa was facing an insurrection and seige, they were the worst ones ever! If it was so dangerous why were MPs allowed to attend Parliament, especially the women with the rape gangs that were roaming the land according to Bill Blair?

My main concern is that the bar is now so low for employing the EA future PMs will be less hesitant to use it. And in this case, it was never actually fully authorized (no Senate vote).

Sometimes peoples’ concerns aren’t always partisan, even if it’s easier to dismiss them as such.

Then again, all this is said by someone who is part of a fringe minority who holds unacceptable views and stands with people who wave swastikas, according to dear Justin.

None of those reached the levels of disruption this freedom convoy did, got the international attention it did, and got the attention of POTUS. 

With regards to my first point... if the fear is that he is covering something up, what is he hiding in terms of the EA?  As someone pointed out... if there is no fire to put out, why call in a bunch of fire trucks?    You're asking what occurred and why....   We already know that. It was outlined and explained. So beyond what was outlined and explained... what needs to be investigated? 

Your last point is good, honest and deserved criticism of JT. 

I’m honestly not sure how much international attention the other incidents received, but for me that’s a non-issue. The Act is meant to address moments of national crisis, both domestic and international.

As for a review of the use of the Act, it’s required by law in the Act itself, and please forgive me if I refuse to accept the government’s version of events at face value.

I’m also still waiting for Trudeau to apologize to the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors for saying she (Melissa Lantsman and the CPC generally) stands with people who wave swastikas. Fortunately for me, I’ve stopped expecting any level of decency from this PM.

It was very telling to me this weekend talking with my nephews visiting from Ottawa (they’re not downtown). I asked what they thought about the convoy and was told it was terrible. When I probed a bit to see how they were directly affected, it became clear they weren’t directly bothered at all. Clearly their parents had told them how to feel about it.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

It’s not even Trudeau reusing the EA that I’m concerned about, although I could see him using it in regards to his environmental agenda. If he truly is clean on the use of the EA then Trudeau should have no problem with an open and transparent examination of what occurred and why (except his default setting is to cover up, as we’ve seen over 7 years now).

I’ve considered all the situations we’ve seen play out that were worse than what happened in Ottawa (remember, the border blockades were pretty much dealt with by the time Trudeau decided to do anything other than slander) where the EA wasn’t used (G20 in Toronto, hockey riots, Occupy movement, “land defender” blockades, railroad blockades, tree occupations). I’ll say again, if Ottawa was facing an insurrection and seige, they were the worst ones ever! If it was so dangerous why were MPs allowed to attend Parliament, especially the women with the rape gangs that were roaming the land according to Bill Blair?

My main concern is that the bar is now so low for employing the EA future PMs will be less hesitant to use it. And in this case, it was never actually fully authorized (no Senate vote).

Sometimes peoples’ concerns aren’t always partisan, even if it’s easier to dismiss them as such.

Then again, all this is said by someone who is part of a fringe minority who holds unacceptable views and stands with people who wave swastikas, according to dear Justin.

None of those reached the levels of disruption this freedom convoy did, got the international attention it did, and got the attention of POTUS. 

With regards to my first point... if the fear is that he is covering something up, what is he hiding in terms of the EA?  As someone pointed out... if there is no fire to put out, why call in a bunch of fire trucks?    You're asking what occurred and why....   We already know that. It was outlined and explained. So beyond what was outlined and explained... what needs to be investigated? 

Your last point is good, honest and deserved criticism of JT. 

I’m honestly not sure how much international attention the other incidents received, but for me that’s a non-issue. The Act is meant to address moments of national crisis, both domestic and international.

As for a review of the use of the Act, it’s required by law in the Act itself, and please forgive me if I refuse to accept the government’s version of events at face value.

I’m also still waiting for Trudeau to apologize to the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors for saying she (Melissa Lantsman and the CPC generally) stands with people who wave swastikas. Fortunately for me, I’ve stopped expecting any level of decency from this PM.

It was very telling to me this weekend talking with my nephews visiting from Ottawa (they’re not downtown). I asked what they thought about the convoy and was told it was terrible. When I probed a bit to see how they were directly affected, it became clear they weren’t directly bothered at all. Clearly their parents had told them how to feel about it.

I have no problem with a review. No one should. But people will. People who complain ad nauseum about liberal government spending. 

Trudeau doesn't need to apologize for shit. He obviously didn't mean she was literally standing next to them. He meant she was standing up for the same causes as them. Which was the absolute truth. 

Why was one anecdotal story followed by an assumption you made about the origins of that story, "very telling"? Clearly, a shit ton of people from Ottawa were bothered by it. 

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

It’s not even Trudeau reusing the EA that I’m concerned about, although I could see him using it in regards to his environmental agenda. If he truly is clean on the use of the EA then Trudeau should have no problem with an open and transparent examination of what occurred and why (except his default setting is to cover up, as we’ve seen over 7 years now).

I’ve considered all the situations we’ve seen play out that were worse than what happened in Ottawa (remember, the border blockades were pretty much dealt with by the time Trudeau decided to do anything other than slander) where the EA wasn’t used (G20 in Toronto, hockey riots, Occupy movement, “land defender” blockades, railroad blockades, tree occupations). I’ll say again, if Ottawa was facing an insurrection and seige, they were the worst ones ever! If it was so dangerous why were MPs allowed to attend Parliament, especially the women with the rape gangs that were roaming the land according to Bill Blair?

My main concern is that the bar is now so low for employing the EA future PMs will be less hesitant to use it. And in this case, it was never actually fully authorized (no Senate vote).

Sometimes peoples’ concerns aren’t always partisan, even if it’s easier to dismiss them as such.

Then again, all this is said by someone who is part of a fringe minority who holds unacceptable views and stands with people who wave swastikas, according to dear Justin.

None of those reached the levels of disruption this freedom convoy did, got the international attention it did, and got the attention of POTUS. 

With regards to my first point... if the fear is that he is covering something up, what is he hiding in terms of the EA?  As someone pointed out... if there is no fire to put out, why call in a bunch of fire trucks?    You're asking what occurred and why....   We already know that. It was outlined and explained. So beyond what was outlined and explained... what needs to be investigated? 

Your last point is good, honest and deserved criticism of JT. 

I’m honestly not sure how much international attention the other incidents received, but for me that’s a non-issue. The Act is meant to address moments of national crisis, both domestic and international.

As for a review of the use of the Act, it’s required by law in the Act itself, and please forgive me if I refuse to accept the government’s version of events at face value.

I’m also still waiting for Trudeau to apologize to the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors for saying she (Melissa Lantsman and the CPC generally) stands with people who wave swastikas. Fortunately for me, I’ve stopped expecting any level of decency from this PM.

It was very telling to me this weekend talking with my nephews visiting from Ottawa (they’re not downtown). I asked what they thought about the convoy and was told it was terrible. When I probed a bit to see how they were directly affected, it became clear they weren’t directly bothered at all. Clearly their parents had told them how to feel about it.

I have no problem with a review. No one should. But people will. People who complain ad nauseum about liberal government spending. 

Trudeau doesn't need to apologize for shit. He obviously didn't mean she was literally standing next to them. He meant she was standing up for the same causes as them. Which was the absolute truth. 

Why was one anecdotal story followed by an assumption you made about the origins of that story, "very telling"? Clearly, a shit ton of people from Ottawa were bothered by it. 

One of my best friends who lives downtown had to leave for a week to be able to work.  A normally very nice person who does not curse had some very choice words for them.  They kept her up at night, littered everywhere, pissed everywhere, were rude to residents, etc. 

To address the point about attention.. those other events garnered no attention except maybe the Vancouver riots because it was after the Cup.  Even the G20 riot didn't get much attention which is odd considering what it was for, what the people did, and then what the police response was. Just a total mess.  But it goes to show... those didn't even compare. A three week occupation of Ottawa and the border blockages caused more issues. Sounding like a broken record here as well... Trudeau had to do something and he doesn't have a lot of power.  It was a national crisis. And considering Biden's involvement... it became an international crisis. 

I would say absolutely bring on whatever investigation is required.  But since the Conservatives would never, ever, eat their own words... you have to try to think about what they would have done in similar circumstances. As Andrew Scheer stated during the railway blockades... he wanted harsher police enforcement. 

Consider as well Trudeau's political motivation as well...  while some supported what those clowns were doing...  ALOT of Canadians felt humiliated by it. To me it was a national embarrassment.. but that's just me. It was shameful and despicable. Generally speaking, anything that gained the support of the Trumps and Tucker Carlson would be. It went well, well beyond a protest. So for Trudeau to use whatever tool he had in the toolbox was a way to act on what most of the country wanted... an end to the embarrassment.  There were a lot of folks who wanted it done sooner. Whatever overreach or abuse of power people are trying to conjure up... sure investigate away. 

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

It’s not even Trudeau reusing the EA that I’m concerned about, although I could see him using it in regards to his environmental agenda. If he truly is clean on the use of the EA then Trudeau should have no problem with an open and transparent examination of what occurred and why (except his default setting is to cover up, as we’ve seen over 7 years now).

I’ve considered all the situations we’ve seen play out that were worse than what happened in Ottawa (remember, the border blockades were pretty much dealt with by the time Trudeau decided to do anything other than slander) where the EA wasn’t used (G20 in Toronto, hockey riots, Occupy movement, “land defender” blockades, railroad blockades, tree occupations). I’ll say again, if Ottawa was facing an insurrection and seige, they were the worst ones ever! If it was so dangerous why were MPs allowed to attend Parliament, especially the women with the rape gangs that were roaming the land according to Bill Blair?

My main concern is that the bar is now so low for employing the EA future PMs will be less hesitant to use it. And in this case, it was never actually fully authorized (no Senate vote).

Sometimes peoples’ concerns aren’t always partisan, even if it’s easier to dismiss them as such.

Then again, all this is said by someone who is part of a fringe minority who holds unacceptable views and stands with people who wave swastikas, according to dear Justin.

None of those reached the levels of disruption this freedom convoy did, got the international attention it did, and got the attention of POTUS. 

With regards to my first point... if the fear is that he is covering something up, what is he hiding in terms of the EA?  As someone pointed out... if there is no fire to put out, why call in a bunch of fire trucks?    You're asking what occurred and why....   We already know that. It was outlined and explained. So beyond what was outlined and explained... what needs to be investigated? 

Your last point is good, honest and deserved criticism of JT. 

I’m honestly not sure how much international attention the other incidents received, but for me that’s a non-issue. The Act is meant to address moments of national crisis, both domestic and international.

As for a review of the use of the Act, it’s required by law in the Act itself, and please forgive me if I refuse to accept the government’s version of events at face value.

I’m also still waiting for Trudeau to apologize to the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors for saying she (Melissa Lantsman and the CPC generally) stands with people who wave swastikas. Fortunately for me, I’ve stopped expecting any level of decency from this PM.

It was very telling to me this weekend talking with my nephews visiting from Ottawa (they’re not downtown). I asked what they thought about the convoy and was told it was terrible. When I probed a bit to see how they were directly affected, it became clear they weren’t directly bothered at all. Clearly their parents had told them how to feel about it.

I obviously don't know your nephews at all, don't know their ages or anything about them, so I can't say whether they were influenced by their parents' views or not, but your view seems to be that unless they were directly affected by the convoy their opinion isn't legitimate and that I disagree with. I live clear across the country so was not directly impacted at all and I still get to have an opinion on the convoy, and so do you, wherever it is that you live. 

Also - you're using the hockey riots as an example of an event where the EA wasn't used? The riots were over in a day without any need for the EA. There wasn't even time, let alone the need. 

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

It’s not even Trudeau reusing the EA that I’m concerned about, although I could see him using it in regards to his environmental agenda. If he truly is clean on the use of the EA then Trudeau should have no problem with an open and transparent examination of what occurred and why (except his default setting is to cover up, as we’ve seen over 7 years now).

I’ve considered all the situations we’ve seen play out that were worse than what happened in Ottawa (remember, the border blockades were pretty much dealt with by the time Trudeau decided to do anything other than slander) where the EA wasn’t used (G20 in Toronto, hockey riots, Occupy movement, “land defender” blockades, railroad blockades, tree occupations). I’ll say again, if Ottawa was facing an insurrection and seige, they were the worst ones ever! If it was so dangerous why were MPs allowed to attend Parliament, especially the women with the rape gangs that were roaming the land according to Bill Blair?

My main concern is that the bar is now so low for employing the EA future PMs will be less hesitant to use it. And in this case, it was never actually fully authorized (no Senate vote).

Sometimes peoples’ concerns aren’t always partisan, even if it’s easier to dismiss them as such.

Then again, all this is said by someone who is part of a fringe minority who holds unacceptable views and stands with people who wave swastikas, according to dear Justin.

None of those reached the levels of disruption this freedom convoy did, got the international attention it did, and got the attention of POTUS. 

With regards to my first point... if the fear is that he is covering something up, what is he hiding in terms of the EA?  As someone pointed out... if there is no fire to put out, why call in a bunch of fire trucks?    You're asking what occurred and why....   We already know that. It was outlined and explained. So beyond what was outlined and explained... what needs to be investigated? 

Your last point is good, honest and deserved criticism of JT. 

I’m honestly not sure how much international attention the other incidents received, but for me that’s a non-issue. The Act is meant to address moments of national crisis, both domestic and international.

As for a review of the use of the Act, it’s required by law in the Act itself, and please forgive me if I refuse to accept the government’s version of events at face value.

I’m also still waiting for Trudeau to apologize to the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors for saying she (Melissa Lantsman and the CPC generally) stands with people who wave swastikas. Fortunately for me, I’ve stopped expecting any level of decency from this PM.

It was very telling to me this weekend talking with my nephews visiting from Ottawa (they’re not downtown). I asked what they thought about the convoy and was told it was terrible. When I probed a bit to see how they were directly affected, it became clear they weren’t directly bothered at all. Clearly their parents had told them how to feel about it.

I obviously don't know your nephews at all, don't know their ages or anything about them, so I can't say whether they were influenced by their parents' views or not, but your view seems to be that unless they were directly affected by the convoy their opinion isn't legitimate and that I disagree with. I live clear across the country so was not directly impacted at all and I still get to have an opinion on the convoy, and so do you, wherever it is that you live. 

Also - you're using the hockey riots as an example of an event where the EA wasn't used? The riots were over in a day without any need for the EA. There wasn't even time, let alone the need. 

DarthMaeglin

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

biggest point many of us are trying to make: when POTUS calls, you fucking answer and do what he asks. POTUS doesn't care when it's not an international entry point. 

HughFreakingDillon

I can't imagine the EA ever would have been considered had it not involved US supply chains. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

biggest point many of us are trying to make: when POTUS calls, you fucking answer and do what he asks. POTUS doesn't care when it's not an international entry point. 

If that’s truly the case, let’s drop the pretences and openly call ourselves the 51st state. And didn’t we just wrap up 4 years of many Canadians saying we needed to ignore POTUS’ demands?

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

biggest point many of us are trying to make: when POTUS calls, you fucking answer and do what he asks. POTUS doesn't care when it's not an international entry point. 

If that’s truly the case, let’s drop the pretences and openly call ourselves the 51st state. And didn’t we just wrap up 4 years of many Canadians saying we needed to ignore POTUS’ demands?

we are not the 51st state, lol. but when you fuck with their economy, expect a phone call, and expect to be told to deal with it. FAST

HughFreakingDillon

we didn't have to worry about trump because none of his threats and boasting were immediate; it was all bluster about this agreement and that agreement that we knew he'd never do anything about. it was easy to dismiss him. 

PJ_Soul

I don't think that is the case at all... I do think that the blockage of trade routes was the biggest factor in enacting the EA, but not the only reason. I also think the American funding coming from certain groups or allegiances played a part, given what and who is truly behind the stupid "freedom convoy" - far-right wingnuts, white nationalists, etc... I 100% believe that played a part in the grave concerns leading to using the EA. Gotta nip that shit in the bud, when funding is coming across the border towards it. The American freaks clearly saw an opening there and were taking advantage of it - the Canadian government was not oblivious to that or the potential dangers that poses to the country. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

biggest point many of us are trying to make: when POTUS calls, you fucking answer and do what he asks. POTUS doesn't care when it's not an international entry point. 

If that’s truly the case, let’s drop the pretences and openly call ourselves the 51st state. And didn’t we just wrap up 4 years of many Canadians saying we needed to ignore POTUS’ demands?

we are not the 51st state, lol. but when you fuck with their economy, expect a phone call, and expect to be told to deal with it. FAST

You're kind of implying that when the American President calls our PM and tells us to jump we simply ask how high where our first question should be why.

For clarity I'm not saying the U.S. shouldn't be a consideration,  but we don't (or at least shouldn't) determine our domestic policies because of U.S. demands. And again,  the borders were open by time the EA was brought forward. 

HughFreakingDillon

I'm speaking obviously in very broad terms. I'm not suggesting that Biden called up Trudeau and just yelled at him to deal with it in 3 seconds and hung up the phone. Obviously there's more nuance to it and a lot more detail. 

Parksy

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think that is the case at all... I do think that the blockage of trade routes was the biggest factor in enacting the EA, but not the only reason. I also think the American funding coming from certain groups or allegiances played a part, given what and who is truly behind the stupid "freedom convoy" - far-right wingnuts, white nationalists, etc... I 100% believe that played a part in the grave concerns leading to using the EA. Gotta nip that shit in the bud, when funding is coming across the border towards it. The American freaks clearly saw an opening there and were taking advantage of it - the Canadian government was not oblivious to that or the potential dangers that poses to the country. 

+1

DarthMaeglin

Getting back to my question a couple posts back ( I finally thought of a possible example), when a future Conservative government uses the EA to deal with rail blockades (which fuck with the economy and peoples' livelihoods), will we all be in agreement that Act's use is justified? What about if it's used to clear out a resurfaced Occupy movement? 

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

One of the main findings of the review should be a formal declaration that local authorities (government and police) failed their citizens by letting a peaceful protest become disruptive to peoples’ lives.

And again, when the EA was brought in, it was to deal with a local protest, since the borders were fully open.

Here’s an honest question, why didn’t the railroad blockades warrant the EA? For me it rose to the same level as anything the truckers did.

biggest point many of us are trying to make: when POTUS calls, you fucking answer and do what he asks. POTUS doesn't care when it's not an international entry point. 

If that’s truly the case, let’s drop the pretences and openly call ourselves the 51st state. And didn’t we just wrap up 4 years of many Canadians saying we needed to ignore POTUS’ demands?

Are we the 51st state? No.  But are we very much in bed with the States? Yes.  And ultimately, while I don't love calling us America's bitch... I have zero problem cooperating with Biden if it means we remain their key ally considering we may need their military help down the road. 

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think that is the case at all... I do think that the blockage of trade routes was the biggest factor in enacting the EA, but not the only reason. I also think the American funding coming from certain groups or allegiances played a part, given what and who is truly behind the stupid "freedom convoy" - far-right wingnuts, white nationalists, etc... I 100% believe that played a part in the grave concerns leading to using the EA. Gotta nip that shit in the bud, when funding is coming across the border towards it. The American freaks clearly saw an opening there and were taking advantage of it - the Canadian government was not oblivious to that or the potential dangers that poses to the country. 

biggest factor....yes. hard to know if it would have been enacted without that issue, I think. 

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think that is the case at all... I do think that the blockage of trade routes was the biggest factor in enacting the EA, but not the only reason. I also think the American funding coming from certain groups or allegiances played a part, given what and who is truly behind the stupid "freedom convoy" - far-right wingnuts, white nationalists, etc... I 100% believe that played a part in the grave concerns leading to using the EA. Gotta nip that shit in the bud, when funding is coming across the border towards it. The American freaks clearly saw an opening there and were taking advantage of it - the Canadian government was not oblivious to that or the potential dangers that poses to the country. 

Haven't they properly established the vast majority of the funding (80%+ I believe) came from within Canada in mostly small donations?  While we're at it can we do some deep dives into the funding of anti-oil protests? There's been rumors about that funding for decades,  lol.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Getting back to my question a couple posts back ( I finally thought of a possible example), when a future Conservative government uses the EA to deal with rail blockades (which fuck with the economy and peoples' livelihoods), will we all be in agreement that Act's use is justified? What about if it's used to clear out a resurfaced Occupy movement? 

I do get what you're getting at....  but the circumstances would need to be pretty equal and I can't see that happening. 

Much of what you're saying is hypothetical.  Talking about how the bar is now lower and the what ifs of a conservative government yadda yadda.   The truth is... yes if the circumstances were equal then of course I would support the EA being used.  I REALLY don't think that will happen so in the meantime, I'm sticking to what has occurred.