Re:Britain being forced to go cashless 'against its will'
by throw0101a on Friday April 01, 2022 @08:37AM
(#30877540)
> I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond.
Created on January 1 (01/01), 2017. It's kind of become less throwaway over time. :)
Also: your username is in green, which means (IIRC) it is less than two weeks old. One of us has a higher probability of being a throwaway.
> One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way.
Your link says nothing to confirm that it was an ex post facto action.
> That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
The Emergencies Act itself says it is subject to the Charter:
> AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
> That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
It was not a blockade or protest that got removed: once they started living there it became an occupation.
Further, threats of use of violence are not part of legal protests:
> (a) 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,
Created on January 1 (01/01), 2017. It's kind of become less throwaway over time. :)
Also: your username is in green, which means (IIRC) it is less than two weeks old. One of us has a higher probability of being a throwaway.
> One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way.
Your link says nothing to confirm that it was an ex post facto action.
> That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
The Emergencies Act itself says it is subject to the Charter:
> AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
* https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.5/page-1.html
> That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
It was not a blockade or protest that got removed: once they started living there it became an occupation.
Further, threats of use of violence are not part of legal protests:
> (a) 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,
* https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-02-15-x1/html/s...