Because, Canada

[R011]

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Why the trouble with the Emergencies Act at all for what looks to me like a bog-standard police action to clear an unlawful blockade? Am I missing something about Canadian federal/provincial distribution of police powers and available officers? There must have been thousands of such actions against millions of protesters throughout the West over the years, and this one's not even particularly forceful; again, the breakup of the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 looks comparable. Or is this more like a "national emergency" in the US which is mostly about funds and has been declared about pretty much anything from establishing a bank holiday to building Trump's border wall?

Why?  Because Trudeau is an idiot with no sense of proportion who helped a situation get out of control.  Since the beginning, Trudeau has treated this like some incipient insurrection by the Far Right.

[Wobbly Head]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

Why?  Because Trudeau is an idiot with no sense of proportion who helped a situation get out of control.  Since the beginning, Trudeau has treated this like some incipient insurrection by the Far Right.

 The issue I have now is he is such an idiot he will probably try to say it's too dangerous to resume Parliament on Tuesday (if they are observing family day holiday in Canada) and keep up the crack downs. Does he not know that is how civil wars start?

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Occupy Wall Street went on for months and months becoming a public health hazard (unlike the trucker protest who have evidently brought their own portable toilet facilities).  Nor were OWS grievances directed at specific government acts, they were simply sad that the world isn't a fair place to live.  The Canadian Freedom Truckers, on the other hand are protesting against what they feel, and many others believe, are oppressive dictatorial mandates by the Canadian government.  They are protesting against specific government actions.  And now that the Canadian government is literally using deadly force to put down those protests, the Freedom Protestors gain ever more credibility and righteousness.

Actually Occupy Wall Street protesters were first served notice they had to leave the park where they camped the next morning three-and-a-half weeks after they had started (17 September to 13 October). The park owner decided otherwise overnight, but as both sides had prepared for action, protesters still clashed with police, who used horses to break them up on Times Square. And I have YouTube video of activist pseudo-journalists to prove it.

Everyone thinks their particular protest is worthy and breaking it up is fascism, of course. Though as for deadly force, the reports about deaths at the protests in Ottawa unsurprisingly appear to be straight lies, driven by a hopeful desire for martyrs to be paraded for the cause.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Why the trouble with the Emergencies Act at all for what looks to me like a bog-standard police action to clear an unlawful blockade? 

The police did not require an emergency act to clear the protestors out of Ottawa.

[glenn239]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

These emergency powers. Have they been granted? Or did I hear correctly that the debate in parliament had been suspended? 

The powers are in use now.  The main utility seems going after the protestor's financial resources, freezing and seizing, fees and fines.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

think about that

the Canadian government means to break these people utterly and completely destroy their lives.  The Left is relentless and evil.

[R011]

1 hour ago, Wobbly Head said:

 The issue I have now is he is such an idiot he will probably try to say it's too dangerous to resume Parliament on Tuesday (if they are observing family day holiday in Canada) and keep up the crack downs. Does he not know that is how civil wars start?

Let's not jump off the slippery slope here.  What might happen is that the opposition will roast him on Tuesday and he'll get some negative media from some usually not especially hostile ,media.  If they're really pisse, they might vote to end the emergency.

[Ivanhoe]

I'm pretty sure that the 20th Century showed that when governments go to overt lies and fabrications, it's not good;

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/02/18/canadian-public-safety-minister-claims-without-proof-that-protestors-were-really-violent-terrorists-attempting-to-overthrow-canadian-government/
 

Quote

 

Worth watching this entire diatribe from start to finish.  In his public statements today, Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, definitively says the people charged by federal RCMP officials are tied to far-right extremist groups who are funded by international terrorist organizations with an intent to overthrow the government.

According to the statements, the Canadian government is under attack from thousands of highly organized terrorists within the country.  Their goal is to overthrow the government and install an entirely new form of national assembly.  This is what he is claiming.

Specifically, Mendicino claims the protestors, charged with firearms offenses in Coutts, are the first wave of a well known domestic terrorist group directly connected to the trucker protest group in Ottawa.  However, when challenged to give the name of the terrorist organization he is speaking about, Mendocino completely walks back the claim to an unrecognizable point.

 

 

[R011]

7 hours ago, Colin said:

This Act has never been used before in 34 years, it's predecessor has been used 3 times, WWI, WWII and the FLQ Crisis also by his father. You can bet they won't use the provisions of this Act to go after the people and funds responsible for this:

 https://www.coastalgaslink.com/whats-new/news-stories/2022/2022-02-17workers-shaken-after-violent-attack-at-morice-river-drill-site/

and this never triggered it either:

https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/local-news/rcmp-offer-could-signal-end-of-local-mohawks-railway-blockade

 

It is a double standard.  Natives have been treated poorly by sucessive governments giving rise to lots of White guilt and previous confrontations with them have gone poorly.  Not to mention that incidents at contruction sites in the middle of nowhere are a lot less disruptive to the general population and a lot less visible to them and the media than a blockade affecting thousands of peole in a major city. 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The powers are in use now.  The main utility seems going after the protestor's financial resources, freezing and seizing, fees and fines.

It's my understanding that Parliament needed to authorize them first? This seems to be exercise of the powers with out legal authorization. 

What's the section in question? Does the Trucker Protest fit that? 

From DOJ Canada:

There are four types of emergencies that can be declared under the Emergencies Act:

• A public welfare emergency
• A public order emergency
• An international emergency
• A war emergency

Which is this? A Public Order Emergency? That's defined as:
 

• public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; (état d’urgence)
• threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)

 

That's further defined as the following  by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act....

...threats to the security of Canada means

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

 

It's obviously not (a) or (b). Is it (c) or (d)?



Also from DOJ Canada. The bolded bit seems relevant. Did that happen? Did both houses vote in favor? If not, it would seem that the exercise of the emergency powers is in fact extra legal.

In view of its exceptional nature, there are additional, stringent safeguards built into the Act to ensure democratic oversight and accountability during an emergency. The following procedural steps act as checks and balances under the law:

• Declaration: The Government of Canada must formally declare an emergency, effective from the day it is made.
• Government tables motion in Parliament: The Government must table a motion in both the House of Commons and the Senate within seven sitting days that asks for confirmation of the Declaration and explains the reasons for it. The Government also gives Parliament a report on the consultations held with provinces before the Declaration was made.
• Parliament votes: Both the House of Commons and the Senate must vote on the motion. If either the House of Commons or the Senate does not vote in favour of the Declaration, then it is revoked that very day.
• The Senate or House of Commons are recalled, if necessary: If either the Senate or the House of Commons is not sitting at the time the Declaration is issued, it must be recalled to sit within seven days of the date of the Declaration.
• Government issues and tables orders and regulations: Any Government actions taken to respond to the emergency must be tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate two days after the Government issues the orders or regulations. This ensures that the Government’s actions are transparent and that the Government will be accountable before Parliament for its actions.
• A parliamentary review committee is established: A special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate must be established to review the Government’s actions under the Act on an ongoing basis.
• Parliament exercises powers: At any time, the Senate or the House of Commons can review and potentially revoke the Declaration and any orders or regulations made under the Act.
• Declaration expires or is extended: The Declaration expires after 30 days unless an extension is confirmed within specific timelines by both the House of Commons and the Senate.
• An  inquiry held: After the emergency has ended, the Emergencies Act requires the Government to hold an  inquiry, and table a report to each House of Parliament within three hundred and sixty days after expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency.

 

[rmgill]

For Banshee and several others who are saying this isn't fascism or some other form of clear exercise of government authoritarianism beyond the bounds of normal probity, the points I raise above REALLY need to be addressed.

What sort of public order emergency is this? If it is one? How is it so? 

And clearly so, were the powers lawfully granted? 

If either of the above are not the case, then I think it's clearly something not lawful and probably fits the definition of something approaching traditional concepts of fascism. ie the authority of the state over the individual being absolute and not to be gainsaid. 


From The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought

fascism

From Latin: fasces, the bundle of rods with a projecting axe-head, carried before the consuls as a sign of the state authority of Rome, and adopted as a symbol of social unity (the bundle) under political leadership (the axe). The name was given by Mussolini to the movement which he led to power in Italy in 1922, but is now used more widely, to include German *Nazism, and Spanish *falangism, on the basis more of a common *ethos than a common *doctrine. Fascism is characterized by the following features (not all of which need be present in any of its recognized instances): *corporatism; *nationalism; hostility to *democracy, to *egalitarianism, and to the values of liberal *enlightenment; the cult of the *leader, and admiration for his special qualities; a respect for collective organization, and a love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades and army discipline. In Germany the cult of *violence, together with a violent *anti-semitism, were added to these features, with notorious results. The *anti-communist and anti-liberal stance of fascist movements, together with the loath- someness of many actual examples, have made the fight against fascism a rallying point for left and liberal causes, so that the label ‘fascist’ may often be applied very loosely, to denote almost any doctrine that conflicts with left-liberal ideology. In this expletive use the term conveys no very clear idea, a fact which perhaps explains its popularity.

From the intellectual point of view fascism remains an amalgam of disparate conceptions, often ill-under- stood, often bizarre. It is more notable as a political phenomenon on which diverse intellectual influences converge than as a distinct idea; as a political phenomenon, one of its most remarkable features has been the abil- ity to win massive popular support for ideas that are expressly anti-egalitarian (see *Reich). Mussolini’s own ideas were derived from a heady mixture of popular science, *Marx, *Sorel and *Nietzsche. He advocated regeneration through conquest and perpetual strug- gle, and spoke, in speeches seething with sexual imagery, of the need to overcome degeneracy and impotence, to make sacrifices for the nation, and to connect to the great ‘dynamo’ of fascism. Fascists are ‘not republicans, socialists, democrats, conservatives or nationalists. They represent a synthe- sis of all the negations and the affir- mations.’ In other words, the ultimate doctrine contains little that is specific, beyond an appeal to energy and action: it is, one might say, the form of an *ideology, but without specific content (other than can be provided by admiration towards the leader). This perhaps explains some of its appeal; it seemed to make no demand other than those which the individual himself would make had he the energy. It then provided the energy.

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

It is a double standard.  Natives have been treated poorly by sucessive governments giving rise to lots of White guilt and previous confrontations with them have gone poorly.  Not to mention that incidents at contruction sites in the middle of nowhere are a lot less disruptive to the general population and a lot less visible to them and the media than a blockade affecting thousands of peole in a major city. 

So becuse the natives were treated poorly you need to do it some more? In full view? 

Were these truckers responsible? If this is about getting back for the natives, perhaps the more correct response would be for the population to line up down the main street and have all figures in government run a gauntlet of whips, switches, rattan poles and the like. Simply beating up on other parts of the population seems hardly to address the unfairness. 
 

[rmgill]

In BC...
 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

And in Ottawa. 

https://rumble.com/vvc260-february-19-live-from-ottawa-viva-on-the-street.html

[NickM]

14 hours ago, R011 said:

Oh, if only that meant you would stop posting complete shit about people, places, and things you know nothing about save what wing nut fringe YouTubers say.

Dave, for years, I've felt that 'foreign papers' don't know 'Jack' about what's going on in the US, and by the same reasoning, I've concluded that US news reporters (whatever their political stripe) often don't know 'Jack' about conditions on the ground in other countries either (like the whole 'north western European cities with whole Islamisized no go zones, 'Asian/Pakistani/muslim' gangs sexually exploiting teens and that there are areas in Western Europe that un=hijabed wymmyn can walk at their own peril' stories we've gotten here from time to time). That being said, I often turn to this 'grate site(tm)' to get the 'straight story', though some folks don't want to talk about such 'Un PC matters' but others will say "It's not THAT bad yet, but it is an issue';  The whole thing is to sift the 'malarky' and the 'political sensitive' to get to the actual facts.

[NickM]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Actually Occupy Wall Street protesters were first served notice they had to leave the park where they camped the next morning three-and-a-half weeks after they had started (17 September to 13 October). The park owner decided otherwise overnight, but as both sides had prepared for action, protesters still clashed with police, who used horses to break them up on Times Square. And I have YouTube video of activist pseudo-journalists to prove it.

Everyone thinks their particular protest is worthy and breaking it up is fascism, of course. Though as for deadly force, the reports about deaths at the protests in Ottawa unsurprisingly appear to be straight lies, driven by a hopeful desire for martyrs to be paraded for the cause.

wasn't it sort of turned out that 'Occupy Wallstreet' was in large part, made up of 'recruited activists' paid to show up and act like anti social dipshits? EVEN back in the 1980s during the Reagan's time, I was looking for work and the want ads had lots of columns for 'wanted: activists to earn $500 per day to protest the Genocide in El Salvador/Nicaragua/Central America'

[R011]

1 minute ago, NickM said:

Dave, for years, I've felt that 'foreign papers' don't know 'Jack' about what's going on in the US, and by the same reasoning, I've concluded that US news reporters (whatever their political stripe) often don't know 'Jack' about conditions on the ground in other countries either (like the whole 'north western European cities with whole Islamisized no go zones, 'Asian/Pakistani/muslim' gangs sexually exploiting teens and that there are areas in Western Europe that un=hijabed wymmyn can walk at their own peril' stories we've gotten here from time to time). That being said, I often turn to this 'grate site(tm)' to get the 'straight story', though some folks don't want to talk about such 'Un PC matters' but others will say "It's not THAT bad yet, but it is an issue';  The whole thing is to sift the 'malarky' and the 'political sensitive' to get to the actual facts.

There's a few peopel here who take what right leaning media says as if it were gospel just because it's right leaning.  Being in their own bubbles, they think most peopel agree wit them and thus with whatever right leaning media tells them.  They especially love right leaning foreign media because they have no first hand knowledge of what those people are claiming.  They're True Beleievers.

The problem is that political activists of all ideologies lie.  They tell half truths, they leave things out, they will even, on occassion, make stuff up, and they report rumour and hearsay that fits their world view without bothering to check it.

 

[NickM]

21 minutes ago, R011 said:

There's a few peopel here who take what right leaning media says as if it were gospel just because it's right leaning.  Being in their own bubbles, they think most peopel agree wit them and thus with whatever right leaning media tells them.  They especially love right leaning foreign media because they have no first hand knowledge of what those people are claiming.  They're True Beleievers.

The problem is that political activists of all ideologies lie.  They tell half truths, they leave things out, they will even, on occassion, make stuff up, and they report rumour and hearsay that fits their world view without bothering to check it.

 

I'm sort of 'one of 'em' true believers and I do prefer to be in my bubble, but I can still view things with a critical mind: BUT when the 'other side' doesn't even address the issues that are 'of concern' (or soft pedal or distort them so they don't 'cause offense' to some protected class') it makes my "spidey senses" tingle, which does nothing for my trust in the media institutions.

[R011]

33 minutes ago, NickM said:

I'm sort of 'one of 'em' true believers and I do prefer to be in my bubble, but I can still view things with a critical mind: BUT when the 'other side' doesn't even address the issues that are 'of concern' (or soft pedal or distort them so they don't 'cause offense' to some protected class') it makes my "spidey senses" tingle, which does nothing for my trust in the media institutions.

I agree and I've psoted about them, but I find too many on the right do the same thing too.

[BansheeOne]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

For Banshee and several others who are saying this isn't fascism or some other form of clear exercise of government authoritarianism beyond the bounds of normal probity, the points I raise above REALLY need to be addressed.

I'm saying that clearing an unlawful blockade isn't fascism. I still have no idea what this emergency thingy is even necessary for, much less if it's adequate, appropriate, considerate or proportionate.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

There's a few peopel here who take what right leaning media says as if it were gospel just because it's right leaning.  Being in their own bubbles, they think most peopel agree wit them and thus with whatever right leaning media tells them.  They especially love right leaning foreign media because they have no first hand knowledge of what those people are claiming.  They're True Beleievers.

If you had someone in the CBC telling you something that contradicted your own gov't leaning views, would you tell the CBC staffer they were in an anti gov't bubble ? 

1 hour ago, R011 said:

The problem is that political activists of all ideologies lie.  

 

So who is telling the truth? Just you? 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

especially when the unlawful blockade is created by people who have "unacceptable views", right?  After all, THAT changes everything.

Since we are going to throw the word "unlawful" around let's take a good hard look at the requirements for the state of emergency declaration.  I'll bet we can find unlawful in the declaration itself.

Keep in mind that the full force of Canadian government is being brought down on these protestors including the seizure of funds and property.  There's really no way to spin this, it is the prototype for the next step.

[rmgill]

13 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I'm saying that clearing an unlawful blockade isn't fascism. I still have no idea what this emergency thingy is even necessary for, much less if it's adequate, appropriate, considerate or proportionate.

They are doing more than clearing an unlawful blockade though. 
 

 

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

It's my understanding that Parliament needed to authorize them first? This seems to be exercise of the powers with out legal authorization. 

What's the section in question? Does the Trucker Protest fit that? 

Seems tough to make any of the criteria of the act fit the case.  I don't think Parliament voted to implement the act, Trudeau just did it as PM.  The NDP is led by a historically weak leader, and with his rubber stamp Trudeau will have the necessary majority to ward off any challenge in Parliament.

[Rick]

2 hours ago, NickM said:

Dave, for years, I've felt that 'foreign papers' don't know 'Jack' about what's going on in the US, and by the same reasoning, I've concluded that US news reporters (whatever their political stripe) often don't know 'Jack' about conditions on the ground in other countries either (like the whole 'north western European cities with whole Islamisized no go zones, 'Asian/Pakistani/muslim' gangs sexually exploiting teens and that there are areas in Western Europe that un=hijabed wymmyn can walk at their own peril' stories we've gotten here from time to time). That being said, I often turn to this 'grate site(tm)' to get the 'straight story', though some folks don't want to talk about such 'Un PC matters' but others will say "It's not THAT bad yet, but it is an issue';  The whole thing is to sift the 'malarky' and the 'political sensitive' to get to the actual facts.

+1