Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

ottawacitizen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#181

Post by edmcnulty101 »

akerl_ wrote: post #137
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locking bank accounts at all WITHOUT A TRIAL, seems dystopian. That's a lot of power for the state to have to be able to reach into some ones bank accounts with no due process. Edit: changed AT ALL to without a trial because on second thought resized it's possible that there are some legit uses for freezing bank accounts.

Seizing funds from criminals to restrict their ability to perpetrate and profit from crime is a tool used by law enforcement in essentially every country, and has been happening for a long time. There’s plenty of areas of this that are misused (see things like civil asset forfeiture), but the overarching strategy of freezing bank accounts isn’t novel or dystopian. Edit: it’s a bit sneaky to change “AT ALL” to “WITHOU…

Edited!

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#183

Post by amscanne »

dblohm7 wrote: post #139
amscanne wrote: post #93

> We’re not suspending the fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are not limiting people’s freedom of speech, we are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly (or) preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally Pretending to express concern about charter rights with respect to towing some trucks away is quite the theatre. Meanwhile, Canada spent the last two years s…

> Canada has a big opt-out for charter rights, in that “reasonable limits” are allowed if they can be “demonstrably justified” Indeed, and there is ample case law from the Supreme Court of Canada that provides guidance to judges as to how to apply that section of the Charter. R v. Oakes was one of the seminal cases in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes

I read a couple of the decisions from challenges to the rules that I thought were overreaching (for example: the hotel quarantine requirement even for vaccinated Canadians), and the bar held by the judges seemed incredibly low — merely that it was “necessary” for public health. No data needed, the mere assertion is enough.

I feel like in the US, states, the federal government and the judiciary tend to be more adversarial and this can be quite useful.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#184

Post by dubcanada »

School-Cotton wrote: post #160
pkd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no loss of mandate, if the opinion polls are anything to go by. Besides, the Canadian people chose the government in the middle of the pandemic last year. Is there a more comprehensive definition of a "mandate" than a federal election? Whether the response is authoritarian depends on how it is enforced. The police have basically failed to enforce any law on the occupiers on parliament hill (I live here). If…

> Is there a more comprehensive definition of a "mandate" than a federal election? Governments chosen by a first-past-the-post system can barely be considered democratically legitimate, if at all.

Well that’s a silly thing to say. I don’t like governments elected on Tuesday. I’d prefer Wednesday. See that’s another silly thing said. Your opinions of FPTP voting have absolutely nothing to do with anything. The government was elected as per the defined rules.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#185

Post by frosted-flakes »

animal_spirits wrote: post #166
pkd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no loss of mandate, if the opinion polls are anything to go by. Besides, the Canadian people chose the government in the middle of the pandemic last year. Is there a more comprehensive definition of a "mandate" than a federal election? Whether the response is authoritarian depends on how it is enforced. The police have basically failed to enforce any law on the occupiers on parliament hill (I live here). If…

It was a snap election was it not? To me it seemed like the Canadian government was trying to take advantage of some weird timing/power trick to remain in government. Instead of waiting for the normal time to re-elect they saw an opportunity to stay in power. I am uneducated on Canadian politics so I could be seeing it wrong

What is the "normal time" for an election? Elections don't have a set regularity, as long as they happen at least every 5 years.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#186

Post by mprovost »

colechristensen wrote: post #101
barbazoo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should be done differently? In Alberta restrictions have been lifted but the occupation of the border still hasn't ended.

Put the measures being protested directly up for a vote by the Canadian legislature (so they're not just executive actions), if they're not struck down the government should resign / do a no confidence vote, let people elect a new government. Let the people have their voice. If protests continue take actions that let them protest but reduce their ability to be disruptive. With the current dynamics of the disease thou…

Omicron will not be the last variant and there's no guarantee that the next one will be less dangerous.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#187

Post by [deleted] »

zozbot234 wrote: post #81
e4e78a06 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confiscating peoples' assets does not exactly engender you to a lot of political support. You're risking a massive loss in the next elections if you do that, just like how Democrats in the US are also facing huge electoral pressures on crime and COVID restrictions [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/new-york-mask...

> You're risking a massive loss in the next elections if you do that You think most Canadians support the illegal blockade? Really? Evidence please.

[deleted]

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#188

Post by dc-programmer »

toolz wrote: post #175
dblohm7 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been multiple incidents of protesters using large vehicles to smash through police barricades. What do you call that?

well back when government buildings were being burned down and people were getting shot - it was commonly and correctly referred to as "mostly peaceful protesting"

In Canada?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#189

Post by makoz »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #163
MattGaiser wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two-thirds of Canadians support military force to end Ottawa protests: poll https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/12/two-thirds-of-canadia... The current approach seems to be a lot more mild than what the public would accept.

A few years ago, there was an online poll to name a new scientific research boat. The boat ended up being named 'boaty mcboatface' I don't know how much I take stock in online polls especially made by partisan sources. Huffington post did an online poll about who would win the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton received around 99% of the votes.

Do you have an issue with the polling methodology they used in the survey? Source on it being an online poll?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#190

Post by colechristensen »

ajross wrote: post #140
colechristensen wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The adjective critical though has been used very broadly during the pandemic. It's clear that it needs a very specific definition or such language could be used to make any protest illegal because it blocked access to a pizza place, etc.

> The adjective critical though has been used very broadly Access to most of Ottawa was been cut off, including one of the biggest border crossings in Canada, not a "pizza place". Deploying hyperbole like this isn't helping your case. Surely if the Ambassador Bridge doesn't qualify as critical infrastructure, nothing does.

I'm not saying what is currently being obstructed is wrong (or not) to include in a restriction on protest.

I am saying that during the pandemic for the purposes of restrictions and exceptions, people who worked at grocery stores were "critical workers". It's a big old caution for using words like "critical" which are very vague in order to implement policy assuming it will be used for things you deem to be important, because you do things like that and now there's precedent. Grocery stores are critical infrastructure now so some picket line for a labor dispute at a grocery store is now legally arguably a banned protest.

When opposed to things, people are usually very happy to give away freedoms they don't realize might have adverse consequences in the future.

Post reply on HN