You can see here how wrong and violent these protests were. The bouncy castle and hot tub were a danger to society!
They loaded up the capital area with 3,200L of fuel and started bringing in propane tanks. You think that wouldn't be considered a threat in front of the White House? Especially since the fortified compound around the White House is significantly further from the roadway than the comparatively unguarded Parliament is from Wellington St.
With respect, I suggest you stick to commenting on the US, or at least things you have some specific knowledge of.
Maybe read some contemporaneous news coverage. From Ottawa where it was happening.
> Mayor Jim Watson declared a state of emergency Sunday after a dystopian weekend of carnival-like scenes, heightened lawlessness, growing tensions between protesters and residents, and relentless noise, diesel fumes and fireworks.
The fact you think the situation was limited to 'bouncy castles and hot tubs' is pretty telling of how little you know about what you're discussing.
You know the invocation of the Act was supported by multiple political parties at the Federal level and Provincial Premiers of all parties?
[1] https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mayor-declares-eme...
Uhm, I dislike this weird defensiveness of newspeak. Does it suspend some rights available under normal circumstances? If yes, then it effectively suspends the constitution? Why does it feel like Simpsons nailed it so hard when Lisa proposed temporary refund adjustments and people cheered thrice out of sheer misunderstanding of the language used.
And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act.
As [1] states:
> Any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In re:
> And all that before we get to the part whether giving government power to pinky swear give all that power back when invoked is kinda playing with fire on the scale comparable to Patriot Act.
Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions. In fact, once the emergency is over they're required by law to hold an inquiry on whether the action was justified in the first place.
Further, the invocation can be rolled back by the House of Commons, the Senate or the Governor General - or honestly probably the King (albeit risking a constitutional crisis) - at any time, and all the temporary laws expire.
This particular invocation was carried out under minority government meaning the invocation had to have the support of multiple political parties too, and risked calling an election. It also had the support of the Provincial Premiers of all political stripes.
It's nothing like the Patriot Act.
What you conveniently leave out is that government in its infinite wisdom can simply decide it does not apply under exceptions[1] in section 1 of the charter. Shocking. Government left itself an out. What is more annoying that people defend it as it is not what it actually is.
Now compare it to what the act was intended for ( some sort of senior politician kidnapping ) and what it was used for in peace time ( forcibly dismantling a protest ).
I guess what I am saying is that it can be governed by Charter all it wants, but at the end of the day it is, apparently, governed by what ruling party considers a crisis.
<< Absolutely not how the Emergencies act is written or functions.
How it is written can be open to interpretation and it functions the way politics does ( expediency of the moment squared ). I am not really writing anything groundbreaking here.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...
Minority government, meaning multiple federal parties, in addition to all the provincial premiers. So basically, every elected official - plus the unelected official, the Governor General. It's why we elect them - and have them, respectively.
Literally everyone had to sign off on this. If you think they're malicious then we have much bigger problems because frankly, they could find much easier ways to harm you than this.
And again, it can be ended by basically anyone and immediately rolled back.
I don't think you've made your case at all, tbh.
But we can agree to disagree.
Sorry if I came across prickly, lol, I was typing faster than thinking.
The state media and government tried to pin mailbox bombings and an instance of kidnapping to this group called the FLQ until an RCMP agent was caught literally red-handed (with severe burns and a torn off finger) planting bombs in a mailbox to pin it on the "FLQ"! [0] The feds then confessed to more than 400 illegal search and seizures, criminal trespass, breaking and entering and arson incidents and the bomb planter admitted he “had done much worse for the feds” (all of these incidents that were used to invoke the constitution's suspension!).
Who was prime minister during that time? You guessed it, Justin Trudeau’s father. What a coincidence.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
So the government will investigate... the government. Do they at least wait for an administration change? Worked out beautifully for police departments...
> the Senate or the Governor General - or honestly probably the King (albeit risking a constitutional crisis) - at any time, and all the temporary laws expire.
Are any of those actually elected or are these just positions nominated by ... the same government who declared the suspension of rights?
You know the government is currently a minority government, meaning that they require the support of at least one other party to remain in power and an election can be called at any time. Canada's has elections every like 18 months on average under minority government.
Any impropriety in the process would have almost certainly toppled the government and led to an immediate election.
The person who found the government was justified in its use of the Emergencies Act [1] was Paul Rouleau [2] a justice of the Court of Appeals of Ontario.
The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments. The House of Commons is elected and comprised of various parties. The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England, not beholden to any one person in Canada really, but instead to all Canadians. Obviously the King is neither nominated nor elected. And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned as the King's representative to Canada.
So no, you're wrong, oversight comes from all over the political spectrum and all kinds of affiliations.
Are you applying an American lens? The political system in Canada is quite different.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/four-highlights-emergencies...
Didn't they just have an election that resulted in the minority government? Meaning all parties knew their chances of overthrowing the current admin were slim.
> Paul Rouleau
Weird. He was nominated by a Liberal administration and found no wrongdoings in the actions of... a Liberal administration!
> The senators are appointed by various leaders and are, at least in theory, not aligned with any political party and given lifetime appointments.
By who? Who nominates those people?
> And the Governor General is also pretty unaligned.
And nominated by?
> The King is obviously a hereditary role and lives in England
So weird to read that a foreign, non-elected person can have such a big impact. Feels completely alien.
This was a public inquiry that was participated in by members of all major parties. [0]
> By who? Who nominates those people?
The leader of the party in power at the time, which historically alternates between Liberals and Conservatives. In lifetime appointments. Generally, though, the nominations aren't aligned with any federal parties, and the senate has its own political parties. You can learn more about the Senate here. [1]
> Weird. He was nominated by a Liberal administration and found no wrongdoings in the actions of... a Liberal administration!
A Liberal minority that can be dissolved at any time. An important point you keep ignoring. [2]
> And nominated by?
The PM. Not beholden to the PM - and they aren't re-appointed after 4 years. Of course, the PM can't remove them. An exit from this post can only occur through death or incapacitation, resignation, or if removed by the King. [3]
> So weird to read that a foreign, non-elected person can have such a big impact. Feels completely alien.
Charles III is King of Canada - among many other titles - and therefore not a foreigner. [4] Canada has its own independent monarchy. Note that in fact any commonwealth citizen is not considered a foreigner in the UK - a commonwealth citizen with permanent residency in the UK can vote, hold public office and join the UK armed forces.
You wanted someone with oversight who isn't beholden to anyone and suddenly they don't count because you don't like it and it feels 'alien.' Much of their power is ceremonial and as I indicated, if they did reject legislation it would likely trigger a constitutional crisis.
I'm done covering grade 10 civics with someone who has made up their mind on something they have no understanding of. It's playing chess against someone playing hopscotch.
Respectfully you're just asking me to spell out the absolute basics of Canadian government. You can simply ask Google things like 'who appoints Canadian senators.'
[0] https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/about/the-commissi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_governments_in_Canada
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
Looks more like there’s a right and a wrong _cause_ to protest.
For reference, the Emergencies Act doesn't 'suspend the constitution' it suspends certain Charter rights for a period of time. [1]
You may be thinking of the 'notwithstanding clause' but that's totally different.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act