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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#381

Post by IainIreland »

pkd wrote: post #314
belval wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't support the convoy, but this still makes me extremely uncomfortable. This is an actual extreme measure. When his father used it, he JAILED communists and "suspected terrorists" in Montreal for more than 24 hours without any evidence, effectively suppressing their rights. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis > police officials sometimes abused their powers without just cause, and some prominent ar…

His father used the War Measures Act. This act was enacted to chisel down the powers of the WMA and has never been used since it was enacted.

As a Canadian: this response should not be downvoted. It is correct and important. The War Measures Act used during the October Crisis was a different law; the Emergencies Act, which was just invoked, was passed as a response to concerns about civil liberties and abuse of power under the WMA. Temporary laws made under the Emergencies Act are, unlike the WMA, subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

More information on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#382

Post by School-Cotton »

fineIllregister wrote: post #286
School-Cotton wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree with your criticism of first past the post. The the proposal of the convoy occupiers is that their organization picks a committee to run the country. That's a significantly less legitimate government with absolutely no claim at a mandate.

Indeed, I don’t think such a government would be democratically legitimate either. The point is that we simply can’t rely on the composition of the parliament to determine what most Canadians believe about any particular issue.

The best we can do is look at opinion polls, which suggest that most people want to get rid of most Covid restrictions, but also don’t support the trucker protest.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#383

Post by aksss »

shakezula wrote: post #267
tonfreed wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 out of 3 colonists supported the American revolution. It's not wise to stomp on such a large and vocal portion of your population.

Did you have the same attitude towards the summer 2020 protests in the US?

Ask after truckers start burning down neighborhood grocery stores and looting, threatening residents to make proper salute, and tearing drivers out of vehicles to beat them.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#384

Post by chrissnell »

armagon wrote: post #332

> 5:05 p.m. > Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he has invoked the Emergencies Act as a “last resort” to bolster the police response to convoy demonstrators and to “bring the situation fully under control.” I really feel like there were a number of "resorts" that could've been taken before this "last" one. Engaging in dialogue with the truckers and not inflaming the situation by calling the truckers names are at the…

No post body was provided.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#385

Post by jhawk28 »

fishidns wrote: post #328
buscoquadnary wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First 90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated. https://newrepublic.com/article/165341/fox-news-vaccine-cana ... My understanding was this was about the mandates and restrictions themselves not about the vaccine. I mean I am vaxxed and oppose vax mandates.

Just want to make sure everyone has the correct piece of data to think about this. The mandate says that non-Canadian truckers need to be vaccinated to enter the country. The mandate says that Canadian truckers, if they are not vaccinated, are not going to be exempt from the normal border entry measures, which is that they'd need to quarantine on entry unless they are vaccinated. The US has a similar mandate for Cana…

> How do you feel about paying for healthcare of people who are not vaccinated and need care to treat COVID?

Do you really want to go down that path? We provide healthcare to all sorts of people that choose to do things that impact their health (drunk drivers, drug addicts, etc). Hypothetically, what happens if there are long term health effects from the vaccinations? Should the unvaccinated say, "why should we pay for your heart treatments"?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#386

Post by ocschwar »

belval wrote: post #290
WesternWind wrote: post #191

Some facts (and a few polls) suggest that the Trucker convoy isn't a broadly popular movement of truckers as much as a well funded tiny minority without broad support even from truckers. First 90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated. https://newrepublic.com/article/165341/fox-news-vaccine-cana... Evidence suggests that funding for this protest is in large part foreign (IE not from canada) and that most canadian donat…

I don't support the convoy, but this still makes me extremely uncomfortable. This is an actual extreme measure. When his father used it, he JAILED communists and "suspected terrorists" in Montreal for more than 24 hours without any evidence, effectively suppressing their rights. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis > police officials sometimes abused their powers without just cause, and some prominent ar…

And Canadian Reddit is full of people demanding that Justin Trudeau echo his father's words.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#387

Post by rtpg »

armagon wrote: post #306
rtpg wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"got natural immunity which is superior" is factually incorrect, at least to every statistical study done by national health orgs. I see many people say "this person, who is vaccinated but got COVID anyways, is allowed to do X. Other person, who has a negative COVID test but am not vaccinated, cannot. That is hypocritical." Can someone explain the hypocrisy? People do get that negative COVID tests have relatively lit…

So many rules have been dubious and nonsensical. I don't recall the specifics, but it seems like at one time in Alberta you could get together with 20 people, but you could only have ten people get together for a funeral. The point of allowing a person to do X is based on the safety of them doing X. If we are preventing X due to fear of covid, then it makes sense to prevent people from doing X if they have covid, reg…

>Some of the rules appear to be punitive towards people who have chosen not to be vaccinated, and not designed to curb the spread of the disease; that is why hypocrisy is being called out.

If more of the population were vaccinated the spread of the disease would be curbed (there are still places under 60% vaccination in the US, for example). It would not be sufficient, but yes the point is to create spaces where you have less risk.

The rule is designed to get more people to be vaccinated. It is accomplishing that objective.

(more nuanced is that I don't believe "vaccinated means everything is OK" is the right position either, and that "vaccinate, but also try to do stuff at half capacity" etc etc would be better but...)

A room with 100% vaccinated people is going to be safer than a room with 100% of people showing up with day-old negative covid tests. (EDIT: actually not sure of this as much now that I'm thinking about it...)

Ultimately the rules forcing vaccination are a result of a huge part of the population refusing vaccination, which is the single most effective policy. It's roundabout because governments don't have the courage to just force the issue (or waited too long and now there's a coalesced movement against it).

Sorry if unvaccinated people feel bad because of it. If they cared about not getting people sick they would vaccinate. Taking covid tests every day doesn't improve your immunity.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#388

Post by akomtu »

mmastrac wrote: post #199
WesternWind wrote: post #191

Some facts (and a few polls) suggest that the Trucker convoy isn't a broadly popular movement of truckers as much as a well funded tiny minority without broad support even from truckers. First 90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated. https://newrepublic.com/article/165341/fox-news-vaccine-cana... Evidence suggests that funding for this protest is in large part foreign (IE not from canada) and that most canadian donat…

Yes, and the emergencies act was required because the police in Ottawa were _letting the protesters violate the law with impunity_. There are multiple _legal_, _judicial_ injunctions in place and the police are failing to enforce them. The rule of law is breaking down and that cannot be allowed to happen.

No post body was provided.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#389

Post by throwaway2048 »

jsjsbdkj wrote: post #294
ameminator wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to be honest, that seems remarkably peaceful, even when compared to the BLM protests from 2 years ago or especially the FLQ crisis of Pierre Trudeau. I don't think the truckers should be going into residential neighborhoods and making noise at all hours - but it's hard to argue that it's violent.

BLM protests in Ottawa were extremely peaceful, and met with harsh police retaliation. Protestors blocked _one_ intersection for one day, and they were all rounded up and arrested by dozens of police officers in the middle of the night.

Strange how the police seem totally unwilling to act in the case of a much more severe blockage

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#390

Post by wk_end »

yonaguska wrote: post #313
ff317 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question though, which applies to both the Canadian truckers case and the Minneapolis example above - does a right to protest an issue also include a right to inflict economic harm (on broader society, in poorly-targeted fashion) in order to raise awareness? Is the amount of economic harm (say, %GDP of the town, region, or country) or how broadly it's targeted ("random retail stores"? "Anything that relies on…

Serious question- how many rights are ok to trample, and how much economic harm is ok for a government to inflict upon its people? I can't take the claims of economic harm from the protests seriously when the govt itself inflicted unnecessary measures that destroyed lives that far outweigh the economic costs of these protests. Besides, the govt can end this issue as well, just end the mandates. The vaccines don't wor…

Although not as well as they did on previous variants of the virus, the vaccines continue to work extraordinarily well against Omicron. For example, consider the latest data from California (https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/):

* "From January 17, 2022 to January 23, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.9 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose."

* "From January 17, 2022 to January 23, 2022, unvaccinated people were 11.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose."

* "From January 10, 2022 to January 16, 2022, unvaccinated people were 21.8 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose."

Post reply on HN