Canadian Politics Redux

HughFreakingDillon

Parksy said:

The EA use is a mess. 

I'm still personally convinced that it was used out of pressure from Biden... which is something the Liberals will NEVER be able to admit for good reasons ....  that said.. rules still need to be followed. 

Along the same lines... I watched a story yesterday regarding police smashing into cars and arresting protesters in BC protesting the old growth forests.  They were blocking roadways in an attempt to get their point across. (sound familiar?) 

To be clear... laws are laws... doesn't matter what your protesting, you need to follow the laws.  I may be personally in support of one thing or another but the laws need to be followed. 

Using the EA needed to meet certain thresholds and it seems like it did not.  Then the Minister essentially lied/misled the House with regards to why it was used.  He should be done immediately and the party held to account. (we know that won't happen.) 

Equally important... is why on earth did the cops act so swiftly and aggressively to remove people and vehicles from roadways in BC as opposed to Ottawa and the border crossings?  If the argument against the EA was that powers were already in place to take care of this stuff... then why weren't those powers used?! Trudeau said publicly and correctly that he did not want to basically 'tell the cops what to do' but he absolutely must have been screaming behind closed doors as to why the cops weren't doing anything. 

100%. 

cops tend to act a tad swifter and more forcefully when it comes to liberal causes it seems. I'm sure many of them were sympathetic to the convoy. 

DarthMaeglin

Oftentimes with logging and pipeline protests by the time police move in there have been court orders and injunctions in place that have essentially been ignored by the protesters, which MAY explain some instances of perceived aggression by the police (not sure about the specifics of the incident you mentioned Parksy).

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Oftentimes with logging and pipeline protests by the time police move in there have been court orders and injunctions in place that have essentially been ignored by the protesters, which MAY explain some instances of perceived aggression by the police (not sure about the specifics of the incident you mentioned Parksy).

Without knowing anything for certain yet...  I'll see what can be dug up ... I HIGHLY doubt any court order or injunction was used against the protesters in BC. Even if that was the case...  same reasoning applies here... where were the court orders and injunctions against the freedom convoy folk?  I'll see what I can find. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Oftentimes with logging and pipeline protests by the time police move in there have been court orders and injunctions in place that have essentially been ignored by the protesters, which MAY explain some instances of perceived aggression by the police (not sure about the specifics of the incident you mentioned Parksy).

Without knowing anything for certain yet...  I'll see what can be dug up ... I HIGHLY doubt any court order or injunction was used against the protesters in BC. Even if that was the case...  same reasoning applies here... where were the court orders and injunctions against the freedom convoy folk?  I'll see what I can find. 

As far as I know there was only one injunction brought against the Ottawa protesters, by a citizen, to stop the incessant honking, which it did by all reports.

There is still (I believe) a class action lawsuit against the Ottawa group, but that’s a different can of worms, lol.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Oftentimes with logging and pipeline protests by the time police move in there have been court orders and injunctions in place that have essentially been ignored by the protesters, which MAY explain some instances of perceived aggression by the police (not sure about the specifics of the incident you mentioned Parksy).

Without knowing anything for certain yet...  I'll see what can be dug up ... I HIGHLY doubt any court order or injunction was used against the protesters in BC. Even if that was the case...  same reasoning applies here... where were the court orders and injunctions against the freedom convoy folk?  I'll see what I can find. 

As far as I know there was only one injunction brought against the Ottawa protesters, by a citizen, to stop the incessant honking, which it did by all reports.

There is still (I believe) a class action lawsuit against the Ottawa group, but that’s a different can of worms, lol.

I'm curious though ...  why would there need to be any sort of court order or injunction at all to enforce rules already on the books. 

The lawsuit thing I can understand ...  but when it comes to cops needing to clear public roadways.. that should already be written into law. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

Parksy said:

The EA use is a mess. 

I'm still personally convinced that it was used out of pressure from Biden... which is something the Liberals will NEVER be able to admit for good reasons ....  that said.. rules still need to be followed. 

Along the same lines... I watched a story yesterday regarding police smashing into cars and arresting protesters in BC protesting the old growth forests.  They were blocking roadways in an attempt to get their point across. (sound familiar?) 

To be clear... laws are laws... doesn't matter what your protesting, you need to follow the laws.  I may be personally in support of one thing or another but the laws need to be followed. 

Using the EA needed to meet certain thresholds and it seems like it did not.  Then the Minister essentially lied/misled the House with regards to why it was used.  He should be done immediately and the party held to account. (we know that won't happen.) 

Equally important... is why on earth did the cops act so swiftly and aggressively to remove people and vehicles from roadways in BC as opposed to Ottawa and the border crossings?  If the argument against the EA was that powers were already in place to take care of this stuff... then why weren't those powers used?! Trudeau said publicly and correctly that he did not want to basically 'tell the cops what to do' but he absolutely must have been screaming behind closed doors as to why the cops weren't doing anything. 

100%. 

cops tend to act a tad swifter and more forcefully when it comes to liberal causes it seems. I'm sure many of them were sympathetic to the convoy. 

That’s not really what I’ve observed, based in part on toppled and headless statues and other acts of vandalism often committed in full view of the authorities. “Overreactions” seem to occur more when legal orders have been ignored and dismissed, as I suggested above.

Parksy

There are indeed a handful of laws on the books for blocking roadways.    Interesting 

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Parksy said:

The EA use is a mess. 

I'm still personally convinced that it was used out of pressure from Biden... which is something the Liberals will NEVER be able to admit for good reasons ....  that said.. rules still need to be followed. 

Along the same lines... I watched a story yesterday regarding police smashing into cars and arresting protesters in BC protesting the old growth forests.  They were blocking roadways in an attempt to get their point across. (sound familiar?) 

To be clear... laws are laws... doesn't matter what your protesting, you need to follow the laws.  I may be personally in support of one thing or another but the laws need to be followed. 

Using the EA needed to meet certain thresholds and it seems like it did not.  Then the Minister essentially lied/misled the House with regards to why it was used.  He should be done immediately and the party held to account. (we know that won't happen.) 

Equally important... is why on earth did the cops act so swiftly and aggressively to remove people and vehicles from roadways in BC as opposed to Ottawa and the border crossings?  If the argument against the EA was that powers were already in place to take care of this stuff... then why weren't those powers used?! Trudeau said publicly and correctly that he did not want to basically 'tell the cops what to do' but he absolutely must have been screaming behind closed doors as to why the cops weren't doing anything. 

100%. 

cops tend to act a tad swifter and more forcefully when it comes to liberal causes it seems. I'm sure many of them were sympathetic to the convoy. 

That’s not really what I’ve observed, based in part on toppled and headless statues and other acts of vandalism often committed in full view of the authorities. “Overreactions” seem to occur more when legal orders have been ignored and dismissed, as I suggested above.

Personally I see the difference between said 'acts'  and  demonstrations are that when these acts are happening (statues for example) it is without a doubt mischief... but are the police there watching it happen and doing nothing?  

We've discussed at length the various demonstrations...   I'm not sure we've seen enough 'right leaning' demonstrations who are out breaking laws.  So there may not be enough data to make the assertions Hugh is.  That said... using the big one that we know of... there seems to be no doubt that it was handled super lightly by the police as opposed to what we see with logging demonstrations, etc. 

I also tend to agree with Hugh regarding police sympathizing with freedom convoy folk which lends a hand to support the rationale that cops were lenient with freedom convoy.   That's not just personal experience... that's coppers posing for photos with them in Ottawa and a Durham copper getting reprimanded for posting a video in uniform in support of them. 

Parksy

In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 

HughFreakingDillon

Parksy said:

In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 

I thought an automatic investigation was hard wired right into use of the EA. How is that not happening?

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

Parksy said:

In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 

I thought an automatic investigation was hard wired right into use of the EA. How is that not happening?

It is.  That's why we're learning about the police not actually saying they needed the EA ... which contradicts what the minister said. 

I think a similar investigation should occur with regards to why and how the cops did so little about the freedom convoy for 2.5 weeks. 

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

Parksy

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

I agree.  For two reasons...  American pressure and ... and I'm putting this as politely as I can... whatever the fuck it took to get those cock stains away from the border and out of Ottawa.. I'm all for it. 

However...  the abuse of power fear would always come up no matter how it was used... so that's why we've put stipulations into how and when it gets used and most importantly... you have to be able to legally justify it.  I can personally justify it all I want... and I will   but was it legally justified?  

Its worth noting that it was voted on and they did in fact write into the order how it was to be used, and for how long... so if the Conservatives want to cast this as Trudeau and the Liberals as being power grabbing authoritarians......  where is the smoking gun here? Like what did this particular use of the EA abuse?  What rights were taken away, etc.?  How did it negatively affect people?

The only plausible case I've seen regarding that is the ability to freeze assets. And looking at the fact that a lot of funding came from the states... it sort of makes sense to assure no outside interference, etc. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 

Pretty much completely agree with you there.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.

Edit: I need to clarify that at times I’ve been condescending and dismissive myself. I make no claims to perfection and when I’m able to recognize that impulse I do try to fight against it. So I own that this pot is calling the kettle.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.

You are correct that I should be less vulgar. 

For me... I look at both sides of the fence here and see a lot of the same mindsets.  Situations or perceived wrong doings happen. People become motivated. And then people act.  It's the same recipe. And when either of those sides become violent or disruptive or illegal... on a legal and enforcement level they should be handled the same. 

The justifications and the causes are what swing my personal bias towards being derogatory and repugnant. 

It's strictly personal... but I can at least understand and sympathize more with those who stand up for the environment and/or against ethnic cleansing as opposed to those who take a stand against temporary mandates and a bullshit fear of oppression. 

I can say that no matter what the cause....  WHAT all these people are doing can be very awful.  But WHY they're doing it... that's where I have strong feelings against the convoy folk. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.

You are correct that I should be less vulgar. 

For me... I look at both sides of the fence here and see a lot of the same mindsets.  Situations or perceived wrong doings happen. People become motivated. And then people act.  It's the same recipe. And when either of those sides become violent or disruptive or illegal... on a legal and enforcement level they should be handled the same. 

The justifications and the causes are what swing my personal bias towards being derogatory and repugnant. 

It's strictly personal... but I can at least understand and sympathize more with those who stand up for the environment and/or against ethnic cleansing as opposed to those who take a stand against temporary mandates and a bullshit fear of oppression. 

I can say that no matter what the cause....  WHAT all these people are doing can be very awful.  But WHY they're doing it... that's where I have strong feelings against the convoy folk. 

Thanks for the reply, and on most points I agree with you. I apologize for singling you out to make a more general point, that wasn’t really my intent (which led to my edit acknowledging my own role in all this).

As I keep telling my friend who questions whether he’s allowed to feel a certain way, we all feel what we feel and we’re all entitled to our personal feelings (I’ll broaden it in this context to include opinions), no matter how right or wrong those feelings may seem. Hopefully we get back to a place of more discussion instead of butting heads (again, this is a general point not specifically aimed at you Parksy, it’s aimed at myself as much as anyone).

DarthMaeglin

Not sure if this muddies Mendicino’s waters or clears them up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bill-blair-chrystia-freeland-emergencies-act-1.6489053

Nami

https://youtu.be/hZhHhkuFmYg

Just posting this link as this channel has been covering the committee/EA review since the beginning.   It's hard to find anything else.  

US bridges were cleared prior to the EA, I cant see pressure from Biden at that point.  Judge ruled the protest was legal, hence cops doing nothing (after the fact yes, but perhaps why).   RCMP/Ontario police did not request it....and publically stated  such during questioning.  The Liberal party is trying to save face/ pass the blame now as they have been caught.  Don't forget, they used the powers prior to passing Senate... Not sure if that's the correct order of execution... PM powers.    Labelling all truckers the way JT did was the start of events, made it a publically justifiable overreach in their eyes, to freeze bank accounts, arrest, and publically damn anyone against vaccine mandates and passports, or for showing any form of support. A show of power is all it was because someone disagreed with them violating their rights.

Parksy

Nami said:

https://youtu.be/hZhHhkuFmYg

Just posting this link as this channel has been covering the committee/EA review since the beginning.   It's hard to find anything else.  

US bridges were cleared prior to the EA, I cant see pressure from Biden at that point.  Judge ruled the protest was legal, hence cops doing nothing (after the fact yes, but perhaps why).   RCMP/Ontario police did not request it....and publically stated  such during questioning.  The Liberal party is trying to save face/ pass the blame now as they have been caught.  Don't forget, they used the powers prior to passing Senate... Not sure if that's the correct order of execution... PM powers.    Labelling all truckers the way JT did was the start of events, made it a publically justifiable overreach in their eyes, to freeze bank accounts, arrest, and publically damn anyone against vaccine mandates and passports, or for showing any form of support. A show of power is all it was because someone disagreed with them violating their rights.

I get where this guy is going... but it's hard to keep asking for an answer when you literally cut the person off three times. 

What Freeland is saying is accurate here.  Reputation is important.. and I would go so far as to say that if you read between the lines here, she's referring to the importance of acting on behalf or due to pressure from the States. 

As far the economic impact... I agree that the Liberals should have reports and figures and facts to provide. In the absence of that, I do recall the Auto sector asking the government to intervene because they were losing millions per day because parts were coming over the border on time. 

What's ultimately troubling for me with regards to the Liberals is that even weeks and months after they don't seem to have their ducks in a row.  While I understand where Freeland is coming from and I really, really think it's plain disrespectful to not let a person fully answer a question that has been asked....   they should have been prepared for all of these questions.  If an MP asks as this fellow was... what was the threshold, what was the economic problem......   Freeland needs to have those figures in front of her.  Her answer should have been:

Our economy was losing (insert figure here) during the blockade. 
Ottawa businesses were being impacted (this much). 
(This many) businesses needed to shut down temporarily. 
We consulted with (these people) to ensure it met the threshold. 

I doubt she was about to explain those things...  but the fellow didn't give her an opportunity to even if she was. 

Perhaps I missed it... what judge deemed the protests legal?  I don't recall that happening at all nor do I agree with it. 

JT did not start these events by labelling the fringe minority.  That's just nonsense.  The folks who organized this convoy (said fringe minority) ... they began this shit storm. And they are far worse than Trudeau. That's just my opinion.  It's one thing to be against a policy and want your voice heard... but to go to Ottawa with a list of demands and do what they did... for how long they did it... in the manner that they did it... attracting the kind of support that they did (Trump, Fox News)....... that's why a lot of people are against them and that's why some of them are facing criminal charges. 

These people are an utter embarrassment. And while I certainly wanted the occupation and blockades to end, I 100% think it needed to be done legally.  It's much more important to me that the government acts within the boundaries of the law than it's own citizens.  To that point, that's why Trudeau should not be PM.