Lemdro.id

1 point

10 months ago

… The War Measures Act? The one that was repealed in like the 80’s?

Wait, are you griping about the Emergencies act? The one that requires the sign off of two levels of democraticly elected government Provincial and Federal and a full independantly run inquest every time it is enacted? Ohhhh you’re a Convoy cocksucker! It all makes sense now.

There are exactly two places in the world out of the host of existing democracies that have a constitutional right to firearms with zero public safety checks requiring limitations like licencing and and if you like the US or Guatemala’s gun policy and private healthcare system that much you can just move there instead of ruining this country by trying to turn us into America’s mini-me.

And really? No protections? You really REALLY don’t understand Canadian law at all do you? You know… You could actually read the results of the inquest right? It’s been out for a year.https://web.archive.org/web/20230217232958/https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/final-report/

Or maybe you just think even the most soft touch of the protective measures a government makes to protect the welfare of the people and infrastructure key to it’s it’s ability to operate is too harsh ? No wonder you’re so upset, you just can’t handle a democratically elected body telling you that you can’t do absolutely anything you want because you are an entitled whiny baby. Grow up.

report

[ - ]

Sagifurius@lemm.ee

1 point

10 months ago

So you don’t remember the government claiming it needed a 30 day extension and then suddenly deciding it didn’t need it at all, when the Senate made it clear they were actually going to review whether it was needed? That the two levels you’re talking about? Cause they dodged that you authoritarian clown.

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

You mean that time the commission heading the report I linked said they wouldn’t have their homework done on time because they still had work to do on the French half of the report to have it ready to got to meet Canada’s national language requirements to have a full bilingual document and then managed to get everything polished off in time with the translation? Yeah they didn’t need two levels of government to rubber stamp a time extension on the report because no one is generally harmed.

Ohhhh no… We’re all gunna fall into ruin because they cared about the longstanding efficacy paperwork… Dumb shit. Don’t believe what your Conservative asswipes try and feed you. They know you won’t bother doing your own fucking homework.

report

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891

[ - ]

Sagifurius@lemm.ee

1 point

10 months ago

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

What you think this is a gotcha? This is normal process for when a law that has never been enacted before gets used for the first time and gets challenged. This is part of how the system works. Laws are drafted and passed but basically inert until they are used. A law that is never used never has victims or damages. Only once laws are used can their use be challenged if they do not fit their internal rules exactly (because real life is messy and law drafts inexact) then they go under review. If one Justice kicks up a stink it goes to the Supreme court. The Supreme court decides if the laws were correctly followed. News anchors love the red flag stage because it’s prime drama and people gobble up any implications of “government overreach” like it’s proven fact which feeds their suspicions about how they are living under tyranny.

If the Supreme Court does find the government DID overreach then there will be rulings to appease damages. One justice is not the Supreme court. Even if they rule it was an improper use this continues to be a normal exercise of democracy BECAUSE the government will pay and face consequences. It is a ultimately GOOD thing that this is going under review.

The Justice system in Canada is fairly impartial because they are not an elected body but “what is the law” is at heart a philosophy question so not every judge rules the same. That’s why they have a big panel of them for these courts. To ensure that a majority of senior executors of the law conclude fairly.

To be frank this is the normal check to the Government. Those rights you were claiming we don’t have are being defended by this system of internal review with potential consequences FOR THE GOVERNMENT. These are your rights being defended, BUT they have not yet been proven to be violated, basically an alarm has been raised as it should in cases lile this and they have to go figure out if it was a burglar or a cat.

What you people don’t seem to fucking get is that the system has safeguards. They are being used effectivly but all this requires a bunch of people with full time jobs to prepare, debate, deliberate and fine tooth comb everything. It takes time because legal challenges at this level take years to resolve but that doesn’t keep pace with the 24 hour news cycle that wants you stupid, mad and plugged in RIGHT NOW and the Opposition party will use any dirty trick to use your conditioned suspicions to their advantage. You are falling for the grift. You can stay mad and clutch your guns to your chest like a security blanket and wave your flag all day but the system is functioning. This act was in effect only ACTIVE for 10 days of the 90 made possible by the passing of the original permissions. The Government applied the law to their understanding of the draft and accepted the risk of all of this with full knowledge of the legal consequences to the government. Now the courts figure out if the force used was excessive and that will make precedent to limit any future uses of the act.

That’s the system.

report

[ - ]

Sagifurius@lemm.ee

1 point

10 months ago

It’s not really new legislation. It’s a mildly updated war measures act. Anyways, an actual legal scholar just disagreed with you and the kangaroo commission.

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

“Mildly”… Uh no. The War measures act conflicted with the Human Rights act and was amended to reflect the civil rights protections. The two do not look even remotely alike.

While I agree the Emergencies Act isn’t “new” legislation because it was drafted 30 years ago I take umbrage with your idea that that is the relevant issue. It sat on the books in mint condition never used for a very long time. It may not be new but the seal is freshly popped.

So.

The government can technically draft any law they want (provided it doesn’t explicitly violate constitutional protections at time of draft) but that it doesn’t mean that the exercise of those laws protect the government from the consequences of using them if the enactment is incorrect or if it violated constitutional rights in the enactment beyond the original scope… A law never used is just legal theory. You can debate it but it was passed and it’s a pain to remove from the books and you usually need to put something in it’s place to do a similar job if it’s there for a “potential” use to defend against something that may or may not happen.

The Emergencies act is in effect brand new in the system because it has only recently effected actual humans and the law can now be applied to evaluate the effect in it’s actual real world use and actual people can be the recipients of compensation for damages.

That “kangaroo Court” is no fucking joke. The government could stand to lose millions of dollars in damages if the door is opened to removing civil case protections… Which is why the Supreme Court is an independent body thay concerns itself with the charge of defending the law. Governments come and go but that’s the oath they take is binding for life or until they retire from the court at age 75.

Elected representatives are not generally experts in law, they are just provided guidance by system appointes experts to protect themselves from potential liability… but those experts are not the Supreme court panel. The justice system is a bunch of people whose life work is the protection and binding law to protect the welfare of the citizens of Canada and the democratic process because they have legitimate enforcement power and perform the duties of being a check to the temporary power of individual administrations.

report