That pro white thread.

[HappySkeptic]

The government is going to have to answer for its use of the emergency powers, and it did stop them in a timely manner.

The fact that their aren't more constitutionally-friendly alternatives in place is the real problem. Both major parties have a disdain for limits on their powers. The use of the not-withstanding clause (mostly by Conservative and Quebecois provincial governments) to over-ride the constitution and the courts is an example of such disdain.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Stopped them in a timely manner, but here the Deputy PM talks about putting several parts of the Emergency Act into place permanently.

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/14...6145969155

[HappySkeptic]

Those changes will be via legislation, not via keeping the emergency powers act operating.

They are the government. They get to make legislation all the time.

If the Conservatives get in power, they will happily keep the new rules involving monitoring of crowdsourcing cash flows. Governments never limit their own power, unless forced to.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I agree with you about the Conservatives. I did not vote for the Conservative PM candidate last time around, and I also refuse to vote for Doug Ford. I think the CCLA brings up some important points about the precedent that has been set now.

https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports...y%20powers.

The emergency orders were not targeted; they were not limited to specific protests, or specific geographic locations. There are thousands of protests in Canada every year. Protests about climate change. Indigenous land claims. Anti-Black racism.
And, more recently, protests in support of, and against, public health measures. Many of these protests are disruptive. The vast majority are also peaceful. The emergency orders, while in force, could have applied to them all.

The government revoked the proclamation of emergency on February 23, 2022. Even though the orders are no longer in force, Canadians are left with the precedent that the government’s actions have set and uncertainty about when the government might make use of this extraordinary legislation again.

CCLA is concerned with the long game. We do not believe that Cabinet today, or a different government in the future, should give itself extraordinary powers unless the situation clearly meets the very high standards required by the Emergencies Act. Any orders passed under the Emergencies Act must also be targeted and proportional—as required by the constitution.

CCLA continues to believe that there was an insufficient legal basis for resort to the Emergencies Act and that the orders the government passed under this legislation were unconstitutional. We also continue to believe that it is important for the courts to consider the legal threshold and constitutional issues so as to guide the actions of future governments. We will continue to move forward with our court case, and plan on being involved in the various reviews of the government’s extraordinary actions.

[HappySkeptic]

A reasonable response from the CCLA. Emergency powers should be triggered by true emergencies, not the government being made to look weak.

If the government didn't have the powers to clear out the trucks, they should deal with that - not the increased monitoring of everyone. My financial advisor was told that he was ordered by the government to "report" anyone that he thought might be withdrawing money to give it to the trucking protest. That seems far beyond normal to me.

[The Architect Of Fate]

And now IA delusional ramblings about the government crackdown on the Ottawa occupation (The National Review  )

I'm sure nudge he going to have a hoot with this nonesense 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hate is covered under free speech, and is it legal to buy that kind of gear in the US? Pretty sure it is. Why is that?

Hate speech isn't protected speech in either of our countries - which has been pointed out to you many times, most recently in my last post.  Profiting from hate speech, or fundraising for terrorism....for that matter, isn't covered by any right.  If you want to know why the proud boys can sell merch in the us but not...say..al qaeda, that has to do with a novelty in how the us designates (or, rather..fails to designate) terror organizations.  In particular, we don't do it to domestics...because then we couldn't call all these white supremacist kooks lone wolves.  We have a vested interest in this, historically.  Canada also gets funny about their own laws sometimes.  They fail to designate the us a state sponsor of terror, for example.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we?  Let's just imagine, for shits and giggles, that what you've come to genuinely believe is true.  No need to label it.  The government is abrogating the rights of it's people.  What are you going to do about it?

IA response ....Oh my god .....

[HappySkeptic]

And now IA delusional ramblings about the government crackdown on the Ottawa occupation (The National Review  )

I'm sure nudge he going to have a hoot with this nonesense 

Oh, I agree that Ezra Levant is on the far right, but even if someone's arguments are self-serving or has ulterior motives, it doesn't mean they are always wrong.

These people may want freedom of speech so they can crap on groups they don't like, but the same rights might protect you or I in other circumstances.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No......

[Irreligious Atheist]

And now IA delusional ramblings about the government crackdown on the Ottawa occupation (The National Review  )

I'm sure nudge he going to have a hoot with this nonesense 

What's nonsense is you saying that someone was killed because of a license plate, and only a license plate, or Boru saying that someone was killed because of pizza and Pokemon cards, and only that reason. Your abuse of the English language here is what activists use to emotionally manipulate and clickbait people into believing lies, and most of the time people don't even click on the link and just read the headline, so they'll end up thinking American police in general are basically just mostly Taliban or Nazi level bad, and waiting for the chance to off someone for jay walking. At least the Taliban will only cut off your hand for stealing, eh? The American police will execute you for stealing a piece of pizza. Ignore the rest of the details and don't even mention them because they hurt the cause. This is why so many people see so many activists as cancer. If you're lying or twisting the truth a thousand different ways from the onset, people are going to tune out right away, because you normally wouldn't need to lie a bunch to stand up against something that was truly wrong. Nudge says I'm imagining that people are losing rights. I'm not talking about Christianity being banned or whatever other nonsensical belief Nudge wants to group me in with. I'm talking about real, documented things like the New Patriot Act or Canada trying to make some aspects of the Emergency Act permanent. We can agree to disagree about whether we like this legislation and support it, but we can't pretend it doesn't exist like Nudge is doing. And no, I never framed online censorship by entities other than the government as "we're losing our rights", so Nudge is wrong about that.

And yeah, Nudge is being weird continuing to ask me why I don't take up arms and commit violence or something. How am I supposed to respond to a question like that?